Dear all,
Would you accept a mate's receipt which is no "clean". It specifies negative remarks about the goods.
Or would you simply apply art. 14f? (Only the mate's receipt not the BL is required in the DC).
Daniel
Mate's receipt
Mate's receipt
Daniel,
In the absence of a contrary opinion from the ‘Banking’ Commission, I would feel obliged to interpret Article 27 as it is written (a dangerous thing to do I know when a supposedly authoritative body often interprets the UCP to mean what they think it should say, rather than what it does say) and to look solely to sub-Article 14(f). (Of course, one could be always be ‘tripped up’ by supposed i.s.b.p. but I am not aware of any on the subject. However, I recognise that mate’s receipt are very rarely called for in the credits my bank handles- and most other banks handle?) So, yes, I would regard a ‘dirty’ mate’s receipt as facially complying. However, it is something I would do with trepidation and at the back of my mind I would be hearing the refrain ‘it is easier to hold onto money than to try to get it back’.
Regards, Jeremy
In the absence of a contrary opinion from the ‘Banking’ Commission, I would feel obliged to interpret Article 27 as it is written (a dangerous thing to do I know when a supposedly authoritative body often interprets the UCP to mean what they think it should say, rather than what it does say) and to look solely to sub-Article 14(f). (Of course, one could be always be ‘tripped up’ by supposed i.s.b.p. but I am not aware of any on the subject. However, I recognise that mate’s receipt are very rarely called for in the credits my bank handles- and most other banks handle?) So, yes, I would regard a ‘dirty’ mate’s receipt as facially complying. However, it is something I would do with trepidation and at the back of my mind I would be hearing the refrain ‘it is easier to hold onto money than to try to get it back’.
Regards, Jeremy
Mate's receipt
Jeremy,
Thanks.
I thought as much but you never know...
It seems that 14f is not always satisfactory.
A carrier or an inspection agency or another entity will make remarks about the goods in a document because they think, à juste titre, that a problem will or may occur. But a bank will have to accept such a document unless the DC according to 14f specify exactly (no more no less) the contents of documents. The thing is that it is impossible and illusory to specify the whole content of a document.
Regards
Daniel
Thanks.
I thought as much but you never know...
It seems that 14f is not always satisfactory.
A carrier or an inspection agency or another entity will make remarks about the goods in a document because they think, à juste titre, that a problem will or may occur. But a bank will have to accept such a document unless the DC according to 14f specify exactly (no more no less) the contents of documents. The thing is that it is impossible and illusory to specify the whole content of a document.
Regards
Daniel