B/L Endorsement

B/L Endorsement (Episode 2)

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.

Question from S.T.S.:
Dear T.O.,
Thank you for your kind response.
In general, we believe that the forwarder is only authorized to arrange the shipping of cargo. Maybe this is the first time we see their name in conjunction with that of the beneficiary as a party showed in the B/L. Due to some special agency arrangement, they may do so if they are so authorized by their principal ( i.e. the beneficiary), Do I follow you, on this point?
I've also looked up the chapter of Agency in the book International Sale's of Goods (1991, published by Croner Publications Ltd). It seems that “xxx logistic” may have signed with the carrier ( the B/L issuer) for the shipped cargo in its own name, hence leaving the beneficiary as an undisclosed principal. Maybe this is why the B/L issuer refuse to delete the wording “xxx Logistic on behalf of “ in the shipper information . But I'm not sure whether my assumption is right or wrong.
Then what's the impact on the actual shipper ( the beneficiary) when the shipper showed as “xxx Logistic on behalf of the Beneficiary”, e.g. is the beneficiary allowed to change the consignee on its own discretion without the intervention of “xxx Logistic” ? This is our concern for this case, although UCP600 Art.14(k) may enable “ xxx Logistic” showed as shipper in B/L.
Thank You
Best regards
S.

Response from T.O. Lee:
Dear Ms. S.,
The real shipper is the beneficiary who has the right to change the consignee. The forwarder is merely an agent. A principle always has its right to act without going through the agent.
I do not wish to speculate the intentions of the parties that may be out of our imagination as some parties do not know negotiable instruments in depth and may have acted in all conceivable ways.
The text books are written by those scholars who have never traded and you should go to the market place to verify their opinions that may be due to reasonable assumptions or thinking along "best practices" that may not exist in the market place due to keen competitions that make such "best practice" not possible to implement.
If you wish to know more about transport documents please buy our handouts to fortify yourself. As a premium member you enjoy 10% off. Only after you have acquired the basics, it is difficult and time consuming to discuss these issues further with you. From our experience, our answer to one question may lead to many questions afterwards and this will become a never ending job. Hope you understand our difficulties.
Best regards,
T. O.

This document is the 2nd episode of Inquiry about B/L Endorsement.

<< Back to the 1st episode

(905) 237-6465

(905) 237-6867