Authentication and Dates

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.
Our expert's responses to queries 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 responses are given for your reference only and you should not rely upon or act on our responses, of which we are not held liable. You should consult your legal counsel or other experts for their opinions in your specific cases.
No query or response can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission.

Dear Mr. Lee,

When I think over why the ICC insisted on the signature of initial along with the authentication of the corrections on the documents again and again, I find there is a different understandings of signature. Here I have to say the problem of what is the exact definition of signature has puzzled me for a long time. I ever presented the query to you on 2003 Sep. 15 as follows:

QUOTE

ISSUE 5: SIGNATURE

Does a company's stamp without a signature of a person's name constitute a signature under the context of ucp500 sub art21(b) "A docu may be signed ...by stamp..."?

English Marine Insurance Act 1906 provision 24(1) stipulates that "A marine policy must be signed by or on behalf of the insurer, provided that in the case of a corporation the corporate seal may be sufficient, but nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the subscription of a corporation to be under seal."

It seems to support the view that merely a company's seal/stamp can constitute a signature. However, I think it can not deduced to general.

There are many definitions I can find as follows:

Name of a person, written by his hand put at the end of a letter, a contract or any document whatever in order to certify it, to confirm it, to make it valid.
Dictionary, French Academy, p. 588.

The signature is the name of a person written by his hand, at the end of a letter or a document, to certify it, to confirm it or to make it valid.
Les Pandectes belges, p. 817.

The name of a person (or significant mark - obsolete) written with his hand (or her) as an authentication of some documents of writing (to authenticate = to give legal validity).
Oxford Dictionary, p. 1892.

To sign signifies writing one's name with one's own hand at the bottom of a document to prove it and to convey an obligation to do what it implies or to attest it.
Ferriere, Law Manual, cited in Belgian law first part, p. 114.

The entry which a person makes of his name (in a particular or regular manner) to confirm the correctness, the genuineness of a writing, or to take responsibility for it.
A signed agreement.
Petit Robert, p. 1649.

The signature of a person, written by his hand, at the bottom of a document, or a deed.
Littré, p. 155.

Name or mark which one puts at the bottom of something written, to certify that one has written it or that one agrees with the content.
Larouse Lexis, p. 1893.

I am not sure under documentary credit the exact understanding of the definition of signature stated in art21 in following various circumstances:

where b/l requires an endorsement, is only a company stamp without a signature of a person's name enough and legal?

Is a company stamp without a signature of a person's name enough and legal to constitute the signature of carrier or the agent of the carrier?

where credit stipulates signed inv., is only a company stamp without a signature of a person's name acceptable?

All the quoted definition of a signature is based on paper trade. It may have difficulty in the electronic or paperless trade. So we have to find out a mutually consistent definition to make the transitional period from eUCP to UCP.

From practical sense, sic ne the document checker

UNQUOTE

If the UCP500 article 20(b): "A document may be signed by handwriting, by facsimile signature, by perforated signature, by stamp, by symbol, or by any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication" is understood as to how to sign a name, the requirement that the document be signed cannot met by merely a stamp of a company not including a person's name. Instead, the requirement may be met by a written signature of a person's name, by facsimile signature of a person's name, by perforated signature of a person's name, by stamp or symbol or chop of a person's name, or by any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication of a person's name. Also referring to "Negotiable Instruments and Check Collection"(4th edition) by Richard E. Speidel and Steve H. Nickles, it says "Normally, this requirement is met by a person using a pen to write her name in longhand. It may also be met by the person using a symbol that she affixes to the instrument by hand, machine or in any other manner." As such, we may understand in this way that the signature is a person's name which can be put onto the document by many means as the UCP500 article 20(b) stipulated.

Therefore, with the above mentioned understanding of the signature, it is reasonable to insist that "A chop alone - that only contains a company name - is not sufficient. A chop that also contains some form of signature, initials, whether 'wet ink' or embossed within the chop, etc. is acceptable." (ICC's opinion), because a chop or stamp of a company name other than a person's name does not constitute a signature subject to UCP500(no person's name, no signature).

The problem of signature seems to be solved and consequently the problem of the authentication of corrections of documents also seems to be solved, don't you think?
Another problem need to be clarified with your guidance

This problem has presented to you in my email to you dated 2004.4.30 as follows:

QUOTE

Issue of "meaning/usage of within"

ISBP PARA 17 (a) stipulates that "within 2 days after" indicates a period from the date of the event until 2 days after the event. For example, "within 2 days after shipment date:2004.4.30" indicates a period from 2004.4.30 to 2004.5.2,that is, a period of 3 days.

PARA 17 (d) stipulates "within 2 days of "indicates a period 2 days prior to the event until 2 days after the event. For example, "within 2 days of shipment date:2004.4.30" indicates a period 2 days prior to 2004.4.30 until 2 days after 2004.4.30,that is, a period of 5 days.

Whilst para 18 stipulates "within" when used in connection with a date excludes that date in the calculation of the period. For example, "within 2 days after shipment date:2004.4.30" excludes the date 2004.4.30,that is a period of 2 days. "within 2 days of shipment date:2004.4.30" excludes the date 2004.4.30, that is, a period of 4 days:2004.4.28, 4.29, 5.1, and 5.2.(unreasonable)
There is evidently an inconsistency.

UNQUOTE

Maybe this problem is only to Chinese as English is their second language. I have looked up "within" in "The New Oxford Dictionary of English" (first published in 1998). One meaning of "within" is "occurring inside (a particular period of time)" e.g.: sold out within two hours. There is no usage connected with a date. Same result in "Cambridge International Dictionary of English". I need your clarification as English seems to be your mother language.

Additionally, do you have the same views as mine mentioned by my email dated 2004.4.30 regarding other three inconsistencies of ICC opinions?

Looking forward to your reply.

J. H.
2004.5.22

Interested in knowing more about T.O. Lee's response to this query?
Please kindly click the button below ...

(905) 237-6465

(905) 237-6867