UCP 600 Carrier Is Confusing

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 H.:
Hi all experts,
As per ISBP paragraph 160 the succeeding carrier and contracting carrier were recognised. For AWB, is the same to be recognised including first carrier?
I read through DCInsight Vol. 11 No.3 July - September 2005 and mostly involved is B/L not AWB. Official Opinion R231 - 1995/96 also not specific the recognition first carrier, succeeding carrier and contracting carrier in signing capacity.
Thanks for advice.

Response from T.O. Lee:

Dear All,
Common carriers, often addressed briefly as "carriers" in UCP 600, are divided into many more specific roles to perform international carriage of goods. These roles of different nature and functions are:
Actual carrier, contracting carrier, main carrier, sub carrier, chartered carrier, COA (Contract of Affreightment) carrier, "silent" carrier (a voyage charterer who has surplus cargo space to carry his business friend's cargoes on a friendly trust basis at a very low freight rate, sometimes unknown to the shipowners to avoid complexity), time charter carrier (who does not own the vessel), transhipment carrier, succeeding carrier, second carrier, consortium carrier (or conference carrier), it is appropriate to stop right here in order not to further confuse our banker friends.
If we try to be more technical, the above carriers only refer to sea carriage subject to COGSA. For air carriers it is completely a new ball game, subject to IATA and air carriage protocols, such as the Montreal Protocol. The rights and responsibilities are different from COGSA.
Hence we cannot give a common opinion on sea and air carriage. Pizza and hamburgers are different although they are all fast foods. Let us leave Saddam to Saddam and Caesar to Caesar.
For UCP 600, there is only one carrier for all carriage, air, sea, road, rail and multimodal. So under UCP 600 we should not go deeper into the specific nature or role of a carrier. UCP 600 is like Wal-Mart or COSTCO, selling pizzas and hamburgers in the frozen foods section. We should not ask for specific questions about pizzas and hamburgers there, such as are those pizzas baked by brick oven, by natural gas or by electricity, using all wheat flour or multigrain or whole grains, not to mention transfat and MSG that may be referred to and disguised under many different names to confuse the consumers. The customer service officers running around there cannot handle such technical questions: such as is hydrogenated oil same as transfat? How about vegetable solids? processed fats? Are they to HALAL (meats meeting Muslim standard) specifications? These questions should be addressed to a small gourmet store named T. O. (Truly Organic) with its logo in green colour :-)
That is why I suggest the Draft Group of UCP 600 to include at lease two main carriers, the actual and the contracting but my voice is not heard. So now, in the way UCP 600 has been written, it is not possible to discuss the rights and responsibilities of the carrier under UCP 600, for the same reason why we should not ask Wal-Mart or COSTCO for technical questions about pizzas.
Bon Appetite!
T. O.

(905) 237-6465

(905) 237-6867