Need yr urgent help - Company's name with or without Ltd.

PhanThanhNhan · Post by **PhanThanhNhan** » Tue May 29, 2012 1:00 am

Dear all,
Please give me your opinion on this case:
L/C required some docs to be issued by OMIC., Ltd but docs presented showed to be issued by OMIC. only (without "Ltd").
Would it be a discr?
Do you know any ICC opinion or decision on this matter?
Thanks and hope to get yr sharing soon.

YaffiD · Post by **YaffiD** » Wed May 30, 2012 1:00 am

I strongly believe this is a discrepancy. Entity's name is important and crucial. Without a word , it might be a different firm.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu May 31, 2012 1:00 am

This seems to be a discrepancy on the basis that an express, and specific, term of the credit has not been met. Cannot help regarding opinions etc.

PhanThanhNhan · Post by **PhanThanhNhan** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:00 am

Thank you all for your sharing.
Anyway, if anyone get to know a related case, pls get me updated. Thanks in advance.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:00 am

Our supreme court said that a company T. Sarl (société à responsabilité limitée) i.o. T.SA (société anonyme) was of significance. Therefore the missing Ltd would also be of significance and there would be a discrepancy. No opinion, query, docdex I am afraid.
Daniel

PhanThanhNhan · Post by **PhanThanhNhan** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:00 am

I found out ICC Official Opinion R455-2000/01 from UCP500 in conformity with all your ideas.
“The absence of word(s) to the effect of the meaning of "Ltd" in the name of the consignee would constitute a discrepancy.”