 |
Three Queries about Bills of Lading
|
|
Three Queries about Bills of Lading
|
Disclaimer
- Our expert's opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICC or the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice. No legal imputation should be attached to any of the contents here and no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements or opinions caused by negligence or otherwise. Our expert's opinions are given for your reference only and you should not rely upon or act on our opinions, of which we are not held liable. You should consult your legal counsel or other experts for their opinions in your specific cases.
- No opinions or comments can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission.
Posted in DC-Pro on Sep 19, 2001 at 5:28:14 PM
FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF FORWARDER'S B/L
We worry that certain members may not fully understand the quotation of Jeremy in the Conclusion part of ICC Opinion No. R225 that says:
"The Clause 'Forwarder's Bill of Lading acceptable' contained in a credit that calls for a Marine Bill of Lading is deemed to give allowance for a Marine Bill of Lading which is ISSUED by a forwarding agent WITHOUT signing the document as a carrier or as an agent for or on behalf of a named carrier"
They may then wonder how the Forwarder would SIGN OR ISSUE such a Forwader's Marine Bill of Lading, NOT as a carrier or its agent, since a B/L must be signed or issued by either a carrier or its agent?
THE NOTION OF ACTUAL CARRIER AND CONTRACTUAL CARRIER
In the ICC opinion quoted above, the interpretations of "carrier" or "named carrier" are according to "carrier" in the Hague, the Hague/Visby Rules and/or "actual carrier" in the Hamburg Rules.
What it really means is that ...
Posted in DC-Pro on Sep 14, 2001 at 5:48:43 PM
Dear Jeremy,
OUR POSITION/ATTITUDE
Our position/attitude in taking part in the DC Pro discussions is that when we disagree with others' opinions, or spotting that some members say something which are not 100% precise or correct, we would not wish to pick on that and embarrass them, unless we are challenged. To us, the DC Pro is not a "battle field" (as you may consider). It is a garden of knowledge and experience exchange, as agreed by Hatem. We do not wish to make others uncomfortable. To be frank, one of them may be our future customer. And we maybe wrong also, who knows?
In your case, we do not force you to answer our questions for the same reason. A Chinese proverb says: ...
Posted in DC-Pro on Sep 14, 2001 at 5:15:49 PM
Dear Jeremy,
Maybe you and we are living in different planets as you have mentioned in one of your early response.
Would you kinldy clarify and pinpoint in which of our statement here that may lead you, or mislead you if you will, to think that we regard that "a forwarder's B/L needs not follow UCP 500 Article 23?"
WHAT ARTICLE 30 IS ALL ABOUT?
Our interpretation of Article 30 is that ...
Posted in DC-Pro on Sep 13, 2001 at 6:06:42 PM
From our consultancy experience, it is risky trying to answer your query purely based on limited information provided over the internet. We must see ...
Posted in DC-Pro on Sep 12, 2001 at 8:52:01 PM
We would like to give more in-depth comments to the three queries raised.
HOW TO DETERMINE CHARTER PARTY B/L?
Q1 There are many ways to determine whether ...
MEANING OF A FORWARDER'S B/L
Q2 in the UCP 500, "forwarder's B/L" should mean a B/L, however named, including but not limited to ...
CORRECT SIGNATORY IN B/L
Q3 From our experience in dealing with B/L disputes related to singatory, we would recommend ...
ICC POSITION PAPER NO. 4 EXAMPLES ARE NON-EXCLUSIVE
By the way, the signatory examples given in ICC Position Paper No. 4 are ...
 |
(905) 237-6465 |  |
(905) 237-6867 |
|
