article 33.d

reemsalha · Post by **reemsalha** » Thu Mar 22, 2001 12:00 am

does article 33.d applies for all means of transport,or only to marine B/L ,as
this article does not specify a certain mode of transport ,because i heard that it applies only for sea freight.

PGauntlett · Post by **PGauntlett** » Fri Mar 23, 2001 12:00 am

In practical terms it's only likely to apply to movements by ships. Art 33d, however, clearly refers to 'transport documents' which are all the docs covered by Arts 23-30.

AbdulkaderBazara · Post by **AbdulkaderBazara** » Fri Mar 23, 2001 12:00 am

Agree with PGauntlett

MichaelaVrijhoefLems · Post by **MichaelaVrijhoefLems** » Wed Mar 28, 2001 1:00 am

This article refers to all means of transport. I agree that in practice it relates to b/l's.

MohammedAbdulKhaliq · Post by **MohammedAbdulKhaliq** » Tue Apr 10, 2001 1:00 am

i agree with above openions that it in general relates to B/Ls and it may apply on all other transport documents ( based on the nature/type of transportation and case by case we can apply this aricle on all transport documents using logical reasoning )

+the article is subject to various interpretation.

vobrien · Post by **vobrien** » Thu Apr 12, 2001 1:00 am

Hennie has said it in a nutshell
"This article refers to all means of transport. I agree that in practice it relates to b/l's."

T.O.Lee · Post by **T.O.Lee** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 1:00 am

Although this sub article, in practice,
refers to Bs/L, it shouold cover ALL
transport documents. That is why I did not propose to add "marine" in front of "transport documents" during the drafting stage of UCP 500. Otherwise the working party should have used the words "marine transport documents" for clarity.

Sub article 33 b refers to transport
documents issued by a courier. This
clearly shows the working party's
intention to cover ALL transport
documents in article 33.

We cannot read a sub article out of
context with other sub articles and
should not interpret it in isolation to
support our dishonour intent.

For those who disagree, I have another question for them. Does "mankind" (man-kind or kind of man?) also include woman/women?

I am from www.tolee.com

[edited 5/22/01 6:24:59 PM]

vobrien · Post by **vobrien** » Tue Apr 17, 2001 1:00 am

Re last question of T.O.Lee
"I have another
question for them. Does "mankind"
includes woman/women?

Having examined many 'on their face' I can safely confirm that the answer is yes!
[edited 4/17/01 9:42:27 PM]