17(e)

[NigelHolt]

Having scrutinized 600 word-by-word (and attended an ICC UK UCP600 seminar), as any prudent banker of course would , I wonder:

1. what is your personal ‘take’ is on the omission of 500 20(c)(i) from 600, e.g. where a credit stipulates: ‘Signed invoice in six copies’, and:

2. what you personally think of the following line of reasoning:

500 20(c)(ii) has been carried forward in the form of 600 17(e). If a ‘copy’ had to be signed, where the credit / 600 required the ‘original’ to be signed, it would automatically become an ‘original’ per 600 17(b). Therefore, 17(e) would serve no purpose unless the intention was that a ‘copy’ did not need to be signed, including where the credit / 600 required the ‘original’ to be signed. Logically, therefore, 500 20(c)(i) has not been carried forward because 600 17(b) renders it unnecessary. As a result, it will remain under 600 the case that where a credit stipulates: ‘Signed invoice in six copies’ the five ‘copies’ need not be signed.

Grateful if you’d kindly let me have your thoughts on the matter.

[KimChristensen]

Dear Jeremy,

Great logic … and I hope that you are right…

Talking of UCP 600 seminars; I attended the one in Paris 26 October (now – there is a prudent banker for you .

As far as I remember there was quite a lot of confusion about that one – and finally (again as far as I remember) it was made clear by the Drafting group that:

If the LC calls for e.g. “Signed invoice in 6 copies” – then ALL 6 needs to be signed.
Reason given (again based on my memory) was that the requirement “signed” would be a specific requirement for that LC overwriting any provision in the UCP to that effect – and if worded in such a way that the “signed” would apply to ALL copies of the document – then ALL should be signed.

Perhaps (hopefully) someone who attended the same seminar can verify the above.

Thanks
Kim

[DanielD]

If I remember correctly the Drafting Group said the matter will be clarified in the "Commentary"...So: roll on Commentary

[NigelHolt]

A 'source' who attended the 26 Oct seminar seemed to think there was disagreement among the Drafting Group too.

Setting aside whatever the Drafting Group's intentions were (assuming the omission of 500 20(c)(i) was not simply an accident), if properly drafted the UCP should stand on its own, without the need for a commentary.

I'd welcome anyone's views as to how they currently read 600.

Thanks, Jeremy
[edited 12/11/2006 1:33:12 PM]

[DanielD]

Sorry, I hadn't finished. Kim, (also based on my memory), you're right: so was the conclusion reached in the morning. In the afternoon, since quite a few people claimed it was not clear the DG said it would be dealt with in the Commentary. Personally if a credit subject to the 600 requires "signed invoice in 6 copies", I think that it may be presented in one original and 5 copies and only the original needs to be signed.

[KimChristensen]

Dear Daniel,

I hope that you end up being right here

Best regards
Kim

[edited 12/11/2006 2:10:28 PM]

[DanielD]

Kim,

My reasoning:
1. the DC requires a signed invoice because otherwise an unsigned invoice may be presented (art. 18 a iv). So it is not a "specific requirement" but a "normal" requirement aimed at avoiding 18 a iv .
2. Afterwards, I apply 17 e

But again, I tend to be oversimplistic

Daniel

Jeremy,

Don't be so cruel with poor 600

Daniel

[KimChristensen]

Dear Jeremy & Daniel,

I have re-read these articles – and I really do not think that the UCP 600 article 17 read together with article 18 gives the answer to that one.

I think it comes down to:

1) How is the LC worded?
At the outset an Invoice needs not be signed – so you need to add an extra requirement to the LC if you want that. This could be done in a number of ways, e.g.:
* Signed invoice in 6 fold
* Invoice in 6 fold, original(s) of which to be signed
* Invoice in 6 fold, at least one of which to be signed
* Invoice in 6 fold all of which to be signed.
Etc.
Etc.

2) What would the ICC banking commission consider the practical application of such LC requirement?
This should probably be tested via a query to the BC.

My personal view is that when the LC calls for “Signed invoice in 6 fold” – then only one should be signed … but as far as I see it could go either way (read: they way where there is consensus) – and I am not sure that the UCP 600 is to “blame” for that. It can not take into account every possible variation that could be added to an LC.

Best regards
Kim

[NigelHolt]

But Kim, 500 is clear on the question, in my opinion anyway. If 20(c)(i) has deliberately not been carried forward (and I freely admit I was not aware of its absence till lately) with the intention of overturning the 500 position then that seems very poor to me. Not that that changes anything.

[DanielD]

Kim,

Out of your 4 examples, only the first gives way to discussion.
It seems nevertheless that the three of us namely you, Jeremy and I agree. Without any other opinions it is now: "suite au prochain numéro".