ICC Digital Library Forum

I have two queries
1-since B/L is a doc. of title, while AWB and CMR are not, is the multimodal
transport doc. considered to be or not ?
2-Is despatching one large shipment over 3 trucks at the same time and having 3 CMR's to be considered as partial shipment,as article 40b mentions
that issuing more than one transport doc. on the same mode ..etc. is not a partial shipment.
your opinions shared in this regard is highly appreciated.

Q1

A multimodal transport document may be issued in negotiable form, such as a negotiable multimodal transport bill of lading.

Q2

If three trucks are loaded at the same point, at the same time, for the same journey and headed for at the same destination, common sense would tell us that this should not be deemed to be partial shipments. It is in fact one shipment carried by many separate trucks, forming one caravan, since any one truck, even good for a 40 ft container, is not big enough to hold the full and complete cargo. A caravan should not be deemed to be partial shipments since the cargo moves simultaneously by the same mode of transport from the same point of loading to the same point of discharge.

WAR TIME OPERATIONS

During a war, such as transport by a fleet formed by many navy freighters carrying the war materials from one port to another should not be deemed to be partial shipments, since the war materials are too big for carriage by any one navy freighter. The Marine Commander who performs such a "fleet" carriage should not be put under martial law for his failure to follow the Admiral's order to execute in a full and complete shipment.

BENEFITS OF SHIPMENT BY A CARAVAN OR A FLEET

In fact, shipment by many trucks or ships can help to spread the risks and should be welcome by the cargo insurance underwriter.

Posting from the business centre of Le Meridien Hotel Jeddah that charges 40 Riyals per hour. I am told that the hotel lamousine is now ready for the airport. Bye!

http://www.tolee.com

[edited 10/10/01 8:36:48 PM]

As there would be a possiblity of different dates for shipment on trucks of the same caravan, how would one differentiate them from an oridinary partial shipment?
[edited 10/11/01 7:38:21 AM]

The answer to this question lies in sub-Article 40(b) which reads as follows:

b. Transport documents which appear on their face to indicate that shipment has been made on the same means of conveyance and for the same journey, provided they indicate the same destination, will not be regarded as covering partial shipments, even if the transport documents indicate different dates of shipment and/or different ports of loading, places of taking in charge, or despatch.

The key term here is "means of conveyance" which means a single vehicle (e.g. a truck, an airplane, a ship etc)

This indicates that shipping in separate trucks constitues partial shipment.

Dear Leo,

OUR REAL INTENT IS FROM COMMON SENSE APPROACH RATHER THAN FROM UCP 500 APPROACH

We fullly understand the UCP 500 interpretation for shipment in another truck to be deemed as partial shipment. In fact we have discussed this with Charles del Busto who interprets "means of conveyance" the same way as you do. That is the reason why in our previous comments, we do not use words such as "based on the UCP 500" but instead use words "common sense tells us" to indicate our real intent.

IN CARAVAN OR FLEET SITUATION, UCP 500 INTERPRETATION APPEARS TO BE TOO MECHANICAL

In a fleet or caravan situation, the UCP 500 interpretation from a banker point of view, seems to be too mechanical. If we deliver two 40-ft containers by two trucks, according to UCP 500, it is a partial shipment. But if we deliver the same two containers by a train using two separate cartages, it is not a partial shipment. This does not make practical sense.

Hence for a caravan situation, it would not be reasonable to deem it as a partial shipment from the common sense approach.

We also doubt it very much if the UCP 500 has thought of the caravan or fleet situation. We are quite confident that in the UCP 600 or UCP 2005 that matters, this Article would have changed to cover the caravan and fleet transport mode.

http://www.tolee.com

[edited 10/12/01 6:07:12 AM]

This is very good T.O but the questions posed are in the present (not future) tense.

And at the moment shipping in separate trucks constitutes partial shipment.

[edited 10/12/01 10:13:41 AM]

DC PRO DISCUSSION FORUM NOT ONLY TO PROVIDE ANSWERS TO QUERIES BY QUOTING UCP 500

The DC Pro Discussion Forum should not be used only to provide answers to queries by quoting the UCP 500 Articles. Otherwise the ICC Banking Commission Query System is a better and more authoritative forum for such purposes.

MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF THE DC PRO DISCUSSION FORUM

Members should use the DC Pro Discussion Forum to air their views on some future issues and to deal with those loopholes in UCP 500 Articles, such as "caravan" or "fleet" shipment which the UCP 500 Working Party may not have covered when they draft this Article 40.

http://www.tolee.com

This is for Mr. Lee.

You said a caravan of trucks would be considered one single shipment.

What happens if one of the trucks breaks down and cannot make it along with the others.

Would this not be considered a partial shipment.

By the same analogy, should the caravan too not be considered several partial shipment (truck-wise)?

Best regards

Vijay M. Lal

CARAVAN, TRAIN AND INLAND WATERWAY TRANSPORT ARE THE SAME BY NATURE, AS FAR AS PARTIAL SHIPMENTS ARE CONCERNED

Dear VijayLal, before we answer your question, would you consider the following train transport or tug boat transport situations, which are the same as our caravan situation.

(1) The existing ICC opinion considers that transport by placing cargoes in different carriages pulled by the same locomotive is not considered as a partial shipment. If it were considered as a partial shipment, then all shipments by train should allow for partial shipments or train transport would not be possible. Is this silly?

(2) When the train passes through a high bridge running across a deep valley and the hook connecting the last carriage breaks down. The loosen carriage falls down the valley with the cargo and everything is broken into pieces.

(3) In this case the result is the same with train "shipment" (not using ships) as in caravan transport as you have pointed out. Then why should the answer be not the same, when the cargo is "shipped" by train and by caravan?

What about two or three barges linked up together and powered by a tug boat in the inland waterway carriage?

Of course, you may "visualize" each truck as a separate "means of conveyance". But common sense tells us that the caravan, inland waterway transport by tug boat and train are the same by nature, as far as "group transport" is concerned.

We may have "parital loss" but not "partial shipment" in a caravan transport.

By the way, when we talk about partial shipments, we are more concerned about the timing of the shipments. That means partial shipments are made at different periods of time, rather than made at the same time, on the sme route and towards the same destination.

So caravan transport is a "new" (as far as UCP is concerned but not new in the transport community) concept not readily understood by non transport community.

Since you are also living in Canada, do you see two or three container trucks carrying goods from the same shipper (warehouse of Canadian Tire or Loblaws supermarket in a more remote location) to the same consignee (a branch in your area). Do you consider them as partial shipments? Please try to ask the same question to the staff working in Canadian Tire and Loblaws and see what you would get.

OUR ADVICE

If one wishes to be a super DC expert, one's thoughts should not be bound by the UCP 500 Articles. Otherwise you are only a slave of the UCP 500 and nothing more.

Use your common sense. It never fails you and it needs not be updated every ten years. For example, in the UCP 400, if the DC is silent, it is revocable. But in the UCP 500, silence means irrevocable. Finally the UCP 500 finds its own common sense.

That is what common sense is all about. We bet that the UCP 2005 would deem caravan transport not as partial shipments. Le us wait and see.

http://www.tolee.com

[edited 11/1/01 5:23:40 AM]

I agree with the common sense approach but some bankers don't.

How about asking the shipping company to state on the transport document that it is a fleet shipment using several trucks at one single shipment?

Regards