ISBP Article A8

[jsheehan]

Original CP Bs/L were recalled from the confirming bank for correction of the notify party. The word "state" was omitted from the name and there was a typo in the street address. The corrections were made and the correction stamp was placed in the middle of the two corrections. The bank again rejected the documents, this time based on the above ISBP Article saying each correction needed separate authentication. My feeling is that although there were 2 corrections both were to the same notify party and the stamp in the middle of the corrections obviously covered both. Appreciate any comments. Thanks

[AndyHunt]

The question posed has the potential to divide respondents, especially given that I cannot recall any published opinion on this subject. Therefore, whilst I might sympathise with your predicament, I do feel we need to fall back on the precise wording of paragraph A8. That paragraph does not distinguish between whether those corrections are made in different areas of a document or within one specific area of a document. Thus if the notify party details contained two separate corrections within it, then the wording is clear, each amendment must be separately authenticated. Clearly however if the notify party details had been deleted in their entirety and then re-typed thereunder, only one authentication would be required.
Andy