ISBP 681 Typos?

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.

17 March 2007

To: Mr. Gary Collyer,
Technical Adviser
ICC Banking Commission
Paris

Dear Gary,

I have noted that in ISBP 681 final draft for approval in Singapore the followings need your clarification:

ISBP 681 paragraph 158, the first sentence "the transport document is valid whether marked as original or not" applies only to rail and inland waterway transport documents but not also to road transport document. But in ISBP 645 paragraph 171, this applies to all three such transport documents including road transport documents.

Please clarify if this is a typo or a radical change. If it is a change, then based on what source? FIATA or ICC Transport Commission recommendations?

In ISBP 681 paragraph 159, 4th line, the word "railway bill" should be "rail waybill" as waybill is a transport document and "bill" is a financial document. Please clarify if this is a typo? or a derivative of "airway bill"?

Many thanks for your prompt attention.
T. O.

(905) 237-6465

(905) 237-6867