ICC Digital Library Forum

Dear all.
Pls give us yr opinion or any relating ICC opinions for the following case:
-Is is discrepant if B/L signed:
ABC as carrier
XYZ signed as agent
We consider it is discrepant because B/L doesn't show XYZ as agent for the carrier or not
Thanks

Pls give your advice for the above situation!
Regards,
PTN

Agent in this context is understood as agent for the named carrier.
I’ll accept the B/L

Regards,
Duc N.H

Hello,

I believe we can accept if stated within the same box as the agent is intending to act on behalf of the carrier.

Dear PTN
I agree that the BL is discrepant, despite the fact that the signature is included in one box. and in this case, the context does not help to determine that the agent has signed for the carrier (in fact, we can assume he may sign for the master).
Regards
Luu Anh Tuyet

Hi all,
Thanks so much for your comments so far. However, in order to make sure whether it is discrepant or not, pls raise any offical reference for this case (or similar case, if any).
Best regards,
PTN

Art. 20 a i in fine and the Commentary page 90 in fine and 91 in initio
Regards
Daniel

Dear PTN
I am now totally sure that the given B/L is discrepant. Pls refer to Publication "Frequently Asked Questions under UCP600" by Gary Collyer, volume VII, question 20.7
Quote: "the UCP, in art 20, imposes three basic requirements: 1-naming of the carrier, 2-siging by the carrier , master or their agent and, 3- that if an agent signs they must state the capacity in which they are siging, i.e., as agent of whom.
In the example, 1 and 2 are achieved but 3 is NOT
Unquote
Pls note that the example is exactly the same as your case.If you need more information, pls contact me
Regards
Anh Tuyet
[edited 12/16/2010 4:24:24 PM]