Goods covered by more than one bill of lading

SJefferis · Post by **SJefferis** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:00 am

Relates to para 99 of ISBP.
We have just seeing the following on a Maersk B/L'.' This B/L covers part of container (XXX) which can only be released against presentation of B/L(YYY/ZZZ) covering the full contents of the mentioned container.' I have never seen them spell it out on a B/L before.
Is it discrepant if we havn't got the other B/L? My view is yes.
Comments appreciated .

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:00 am

Dear Peter

I take it that B/L YYY/ZZZ refers to two different B/L numbers – and that one of them is presented under the L/C in question, while the other is not part of the same presentation.
In that case I see this as a clear discrepancy.

My personal view without responsibility / liability

Best regards
Kim

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:00 am

Please see paragraph 99 of the ISBP -- you have a clear discrepancy here unfortunately.

regards
Judith

SJefferis · Post by **SJefferis** » Thu May 26, 2005 1:00 am

Further to my previous posts we have suggested to the applicant that we include a clause in the L/c along the following lines in field 47A. 'B/L evidencing goods covered by further B/L's acceptable'. Is this a good idea or is it likely to cause further problems? The applicant is happy for us to do this.

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Thu May 26, 2005 1:00 am

Dear Peter,

Tricky question. It would in any case solve the “L/C problem”. What problems that lies behind this (in the real world) can be hard to evaluate on 3rd hand.

It seems to me however, that the purpose of paragraph 99 is to protect the applicant from paying for goods, while not having access to it. So if the applicant is happy (and understands the potential consequence of this), then I would not hesitate to add this clause to the L/C.

(It should be added, that from a bankers perspective, there is the risk that the pledge to the goods may be worthless … so issuing bank should of course consider the importance of this, related to the specific customer/credit)

Best regards
Kim

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Thu May 26, 2005 1:00 am

I think that it would be better to have goods shipped against a single house B/L such as a FIATA B/L instead of multiple B/L. If you permit multiple B/L, you also permit multiple carriers (even though all goods may be shipped on the same vessel). This can be a nightmare for insurance purposes in the event of claims.

Laurence

AnnaS · Post by **AnnaS** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:00 am

Hi,

coming back to Peter's question I'm intresting whether in your opinion clause in the L/C concerning B/L'part container load is allowed' covers the Peter's discepany.

rgds

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:00 am

Hi Anna,

Well – this is likely the intention of such a clause … but … there is nothing in the rules that prohibit “partial container load” – in fact most goods are part of a container. The problem is when the B/L indicates that more than one B/L are required for release of the goods, and all Bs/L are not part of the same presentation under the L/C.

So my view is that this wording does not solve this.

Best regards
Kim