mia vervacke wrote:
IMHO there is no contradiction between the two answers of Mr Collyer.
The statement quoted by Loankim considers the endorsement of a bill of lading
Ask: The LC requirement was ‘Full set of 3/3 clean on board Charter Party Bill of Lading made out to Order and blank endorsed.Documents rejected by the Issuing Bank quoting the following discrepancy - ‘B/L endorsed by shipper to the order of [name of bank] and then they endorsed to [named company] who then endorsed in blank, which is different from LC requirement”.The discrepancy picked up by the issuing bank is valid I invalid? ”.
Answer: Provided the endorsement made by [named company] was in blank i.e., they did not endorse to another [named] patty then the document would be acceptable. The language in the IC does not prohibit multiple endorsements, provided that the final endorsement is in blank.
The statement quoted by Berry considers the consignee of a bill of lading
Question A credit calls for the bill of lading to be issued to the order of the issuing bank. The presented bill of lading has been issued to order of the shipper or to order, and endorsed by the shipper on the back of the document, to the order of or in favour of the issuing bank. Please advise whether this bill of lading is acceptable.
Answer The credit required presentation of a bill of lading issued to order of the issuing bank NOT "issued to order or endorsed to the order of the issuing bank". If the bill of lading is not issued to order of the issuing bank it does not comply with the credit terms.
Yes. Absolutely right! On reviewing the queries (properly this time
) I would concede that the correct responses have been given and are not in themselves, contradictory. However, I still believe it is the effect of the final version of the document after any/all endorsements have been made that should determine compliance.
Turning the query on its head, if for example, the LC had called for B/Ls made out “to order” and blank endorsed, and the presented B/L evidenced Party A as consignor and “To order of” Party B as consignee, but bearing blank endorsement by Party B, such a document would be discrepant by virtue of the analysis, because the consignee is not shown as “To order” and omits to bear endorsement in blank by Party A. The effect would have been achieved but the document would still be discrepant on a mere technicality