Typographical Errors in
ICC Publcation No. 565

Disclaimer

  1. The names of the parties, as well as the data and information in the cases stated below, have been sanitized in order to protect the identity of the parties involved. The complexities of the cases have also been simplified to facilitate easy understanding of the key issues involved.
  2. 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 of the cases 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.
  3. No article, opinion, or comment can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission.

Mr. Gary Collyer
Technical Adviser, ICC Banking Commission

January 14, 1998

Dear Mr. Collyer,

Typographical Errors in ICC Publication No. 565 "Opinions of the ICC Banking Commission 1995-1996 Responses to queries on UCP 400, UCP 500 and URC 322".

I wish to advise you of some of the typographical errors in the captioned publication as follows:

  1. Case R 197 on page 11, the 4th paragraph, the last second line,

    "UCP500" should be "UCP 400" because this case is under "Opinions on UCP 400" according to the Table of Contents.

  2. Case R 213 on page 36, the 4th paragraph, the second line,

    "...export corporation, Country A, China, but the shipper's name ..." where "China" should be deleted because it is intended to refer to China as "Country A". "Country A" appears also in the 4th line of this same paragraph.

  3. Case R 214 on page 37, the 4th, the 5th and the 7th paragraphs,

    In paragraph c), it is stated: "...Bank 'B' who negotiates the documents,..."

    In paragraph d), it is sated:"The issuing bank, upon verification of the documents......decides to refuse the documents, putting the documents at the disposal of the confirming bank."

    In paragraph e), it is stated: "The issuing bank returns the documentation via courier to the negotiating bank without having endorsed the necessary documents such as a bill of lading."

    Although the confirming bank and the negotiating bank are one and the same bank in this particular case, it appears more consistent and it may also avoid confusions if either "confirming bank" or "negotiating Bank" is to be used throughout. I prefer to refer to the bank's role as the "negotiating bank" here because it is the bank that has the right of claiming reimbursements from the issuing bank. This appears more technically correct. What do you think?

    Would you enlighten me on the issue:

    After choosing to hold the documents at the disposal of the negotiating bank, how can the issuing bank return the documents to the negotiating bank without first obtaining its approval or disposal instructions?

    What will be the reasonable time, according to the London banking practice other than the legal perspectives, for the presenter to give its disposal instructions for the documents, after which the issuing bank may return the documents to the presenter without prior notice? This seems to be a good new sub article for the forthcoming "UCP 600". As a consultant, from time to time, I come across disputes over such issue.

  4. Case R 221 on page 44, the 8th paragraph, the last line,

    For the sake of preciseness and consistency, the term "contractual carrier" used in this paragraph should better be changed to "contracting carrier" to correspond with the terminology used in Article 10 of the "Hamburg Rules" for B/L and also with "contracting carrier" used in Case 231, on page 57, the 5th and the 8th paragraphs.

    This is particularly important when we are now at the threshold of the electronic commerce era which integrates all trades and industries to ensure that different operation systems work harmoniously and that they are mutually compatible. Shall we start with the principle that "the same terminology is to be used for the same thing across industries"?

  5. Case R 231 on page 58, the 3rd paragraph, the first line,

    "Airway Bill" should be "Air Waybill".

I look forward to your response and enlightenment.

If you can spare the time, I wish to invite you to dinner during your stay in Paris in April 1998 for the ICC Banking Commission meetings.

Yours Sincerely,
For and on behalf of
T. O. LEE CONSULTANTS LTD.

T. O. Lee
Managing Director

---bar---
Phone (416) 298-5881 Fax (416) 292-5535
---bar---

Home Page Column Page About the Founder Send Email
Site Map Attend Workshop

Email: experts@tolee.com   © 1992-2008 T.O. LEE CONSULTANTS LTD.   ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.