 |
UCP 500 Article 23
|
|
UCP 500 Article 23
|
Disclaimer
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.
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.
No article, opinion, or comment can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission.
26 August 2003
To: Members of the Consulting Group
UCP 500 Revision
ICC Banking Commission
ParisHello Members,
Posting from T. O. Lee
Many thanks indeed for Laurence to take the time to respond to my Comment No. 1 to 3. Whilst thanking him for giving us his thoughts, I have to clarify the issues further under his opinions as appearing below:
TOLEE RESPONSE
Would Laurence clarify first whether the Agent signs for the Master (A) as a NATURAL PERSON (John Doe) or (B) as a CAPACITY (Master). The two concepts about the Agent's status may lead to two different answers. For (A), the name of the Master may have to be given but definitely not in (B). This has already been pointed out in my Comment No. 1.
Secondly my opinions are also supported by Holman Fenwick & Willan (HFW), an international law firm with its headquarters in England specialised in marine litigations. Cody Leung of HFW has written a query answered by ICC Document 470/TA.540rev in which Ms Leung said:
"It is trite law that a bill of lading signed by the master is prima facie an owner's bill meaning that the owner as well as the vessel are the carrier. The name of the owner printed on the bill, in our view, is sufficient to "indicate" the name of the carrier. An express reference to the word "carrier" is not necessary to comply with article 23 (a) (i)."
The opinion from ICC Banking Commission is as follows:
"In order for a bill of lading to comply with UCP 500 Article 23 in all cases, the name of the carrier must appear on the face thereof and be identified as such".
I am not surprised at this answer as the Articles of UCP 500 must be upheld or many bills of lading rejected previously would have to be reversed. However, when we make a revised UCP 500, perhaps the ICC Banking Commission should consider the opinion of HFW.
As this is a highly technical issue, the best thing to do is to consult the ICC Transport Commission and/or BIMCO, who should be the one that has the final say in this issue.
This can also avoid a future court decision different from the opinions of the ICC Banking Commission.
TOLEE RESPONSE
Not all BsL issued and signed by a charterer is AUTOMATICALLY a charter party BL.
If a bareboat charterer charters a vessel for 5 years, appoints his master and other crew members and runs the vessel as a cargo ship (common carrier) to receive cargoes from his customers, then the BsL are all Port-to-Port Marine/Ocean BsL that have to be examined under Article 23 of UCP 500. A carrier can own the vessel but he can also charter a vessel used as a common carrier. It is the practice for a liner company to own 5 vessels in normal time and charter another 2 vessels during the boom period. All BsL issued by it are the same, Article 23 BsL.
In the same way, when we go for a movie, we get our admission tickets. We don't care whether the cinema is owned or rented by the production company. We cannot see this from the ticket anyway.
TOLEE RESPONSE
The notation of "feeder" vessel and "ocean" vessel is from marine transport and these terms are also used in Incoterms 2000 publications, although we cannot give a precise definition for them. However, we can differentiate these two terms from common sense.
Laurence, in your Rotterdam/Southampton/Fremantle vs. Fremantle/Southampton/Rotterdam example, the vessel performing the longer ocean carriage, e.g., vessel B, is always the ocean vessel in the two voyages of different voyage numbers. For vessel A, in voyage Rotterdam/Southampton/Fremantle, it is a feeder vessel, whilst in voyage Fremantle/Southampton/Rotterdam, it is an "on carriage" vessel to be precise.
I would try to define the terms as follows:
The first leg vessel performing a shorter voyage is the feeder vessel and the vessel performing a shorter second leg voyage is the "on carriage" vessel.
I would request Professor Jan Ramberg, Professor Charles Debattista, Philippe Rapatout and Frank Reynolds to give us their opinions on these three issues.
Regards
T. O. Lee
 |
(905) 237-6465 |  |
(905) 237-6867 |
|