Full set of B/L?

Wolfgang1 · Post by **Wolfgang1** » Thu May 12, 2011 1:00 am

We requested full set (3/3) of B/L under L/C and the following was presented:
1 B/L showing preprinted wording ORIGINAL and a stamp 'FIRST ORIGINAL'
1 B/L showing preprinted wording ORIGINAL and a stamp 'SECOND ORIGINAL'
1 B/L showing preprinted wording COPY and a stamp 'THIRD ORIGINAL'

Is such kind of B/L acceptable as full set under consideration of UCP600?

ZErsamut · Post by **ZErsamut** » Thu May 12, 2011 1:00 am

Hello again;

Since the B/L in question bears a preprinted wording “COPY” as well as a stamp “THIRD ORIGINAL”, the B/L itself indicates that it is a “copy” and therefore it should be treated as a copy according to sub article 17 (b) of UCP 600.

Regards.
ZEYNEP

polterd · Post by **polterd** » Tue May 17, 2011 1:00 am

In my opinion it is a discrepancy.
Furthermore, you can presume that one non-negotiable copy was stamped "third original" by mistake and in this case you must ask yourself where is the third original (also preprinted "third original") ?
Regards,
Bogdan

DLloyd1 · Post by **DLloyd1** » Tue May 17, 2011 1:00 am

Why should we assume that one non-negotiable copy was stamped "third original"? My opinion is that the issuers of the BL simply used the wrong form when issuing the third original. The fact that it was subsequently stamped "Third Original" and (presumably) seperately signed as an original could in fact render it the 3rd original.

Having said that, if it was a simple error, the issuers should have no problem with re-issuing it.