appear to have been issued

[berry]

dear all,

consider UCP article 18 a1

a. A commercial invoice:

i. must appear to have been issued by the beneficiary

why it is written like this instead of "must be issued by the beneficiary"?

[ajoy]

consider UCP article 18 a1

a. A commercial invoice:

i. must appear to have been issued by the beneficiary

why it is written like this instead of "must be issued by the beneficiary"?
dear all,

Perhaps convention. An invoice need not be signed by bene either which is a common practice so can anyone actually confirm that the 'invoice has been issued by the bene' as against confirming that invoice appears to have been issued by the bene.

But I am only guessing.

Your question rephrased is : Is thier any material difference between 'appears to have been issued by bene' and 'must be issued by bene'? If yes what?

Let us wait for someone who knows for sure?

Cheers

[picant]

Hi Pals,

the use of word "appear", IMHO is confirming the art 34 prevision about the effectiveness of documents,
A bank must check that invoice appears, without a further investigation.
It sounds so strange but all the frame of l/c is based on "appearance".

Other Comments appreciated

Ciao

[ajoy]

and precise too.

cheers

[ajoy]

The use of word 'appears ' i/o 'must be' issued by Bene doesnot really make any difference to the consequences arising from Article 34 though.

In other words even if Article 18 a (i) said commercial Invoice 'must be' issued by the bene it woud not override Ar 34 in any way and the banks would still not be responsible for the effectiveness of the invoice.

So I am inclined to guess of it as an hangover or at best the need to harmonize with the fact that invoices may not be signed.

(Have never read /heard of any reason given for use of word 'appear' so I am guessing only)

Comments welcome.

Cheers.