Dear All,
The DC subject to UCP 600 required the Consignee of a negotiable bill of lading made to the order of Party A but the negotiable bill of lading presented was consigned to the order of Party B. However, there was an endorsement from Party B to the order of Party A on the face of the bill of lading. The issuing bank dishonored due to name of Consignee in the bill of lading was not meeting the DC requirement. Is this a discrepancy?
Thank you for your assistance.
Regards,
ucp 800
The issuing bank dishonoured due to name of Consignee
-
ucp800
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:56 pm
- First Name: LEUNG
- Last Name: KING SANG
- Organization: WACHOVIA BANK N.A.
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
-
cristiand969
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
- First Name: Cristian
- Last Name: D.
- Organization: Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: RO
Dear ucp800
Dear UCP 800,
I believe you don't mind if I tell you that all recent questions you have posted are in one way or another CDCS exercises that I have already come accross ....
I hope you don't check us with the right answers
I believe you don't mind if I tell you that all recent questions you have posted are in one way or another CDCS exercises that I have already come accross ....
I hope you don't check us with the right answers
-
Judith
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:59 am
Dear Christian
Well?! Don't keep us in suspense?! Tell us what you think already because not all of us have seen these wonderful CDCS questions!
I for one will go on a limb and say, "Discrepancy" because I read someplace that the rights and responsibilities of the consignee may be slightly different from that of an endorsee. So, if the credit wanted the BL to be consigned to the order of Party A, it must be consigned to the order of Party A.
Any comments appreciated.
I for one will go on a limb and say, "Discrepancy" because I read someplace that the rights and responsibilities of the consignee may be slightly different from that of an endorsee. So, if the credit wanted the BL to be consigned to the order of Party A, it must be consigned to the order of Party A.
Any comments appreciated.
-
cristiand969
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
- First Name: Cristian
- Last Name: D.
- Organization: Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: RO
to Judith - Model answer
Party B, by endorsing the negotiable bill of lading to the order of Party A, has met the requirements of the DC, namely, (i) To make the goods delivered to Party A or its order on arrival as a Holder; and (ii) To transfer to Party A the right to sue the Carrier against the contract of carriage in which the bill of lading is an evidence of such contract.
In fact, in case trade frauds are uncovered, compared to Party A, Party B's position is stronger in claiming as an innocent holder. The rights of Party B are more protected under the laws on negotiable instruments.
In fact the presented bill of lading is even better than the one intended in the DC and hence this does not constitute a reason for rejection.
In fact, in case trade frauds are uncovered, compared to Party A, Party B's position is stronger in claiming as an innocent holder. The rights of Party B are more protected under the laws on negotiable instruments.
In fact the presented bill of lading is even better than the one intended in the DC and hence this does not constitute a reason for rejection.
-
Judith
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:59 am
To Christian – Another view
Actually, bills of lading are not true “negotiable instruments”.
Many times, they are referred to as “quasi-negotiable instruments” because the defect in title in fact DOES pass to the consignee. So if A’s title is defective, B is worse off.
However, the problem with the above reasoning is that my theory is based on law followed in commonwealth countries. I do not know if there a difference in countries that follow US or French laws (which I understand are a little different from English laws).
Is there a UCP source for your “model answer”? I’ll be very interested in knowing the rationale why it would be acceptable.
Many times, they are referred to as “quasi-negotiable instruments” because the defect in title in fact DOES pass to the consignee. So if A’s title is defective, B is worse off.
However, the problem with the above reasoning is that my theory is based on law followed in commonwealth countries. I do not know if there a difference in countries that follow US or French laws (which I understand are a little different from English laws).
Is there a UCP source for your “model answer”? I’ll be very interested in knowing the rationale why it would be acceptable.