Signature on AWB

The forum is dedicated to all who deals with LCs. Please share your experiences, problems and opinions with us. You are requested to be confined to LC related issues only. Let us together discover the beauty of Letter of Credit. Thank and regards – admin; besttradesolution.com
Post Reply
User avatar
berry
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:36 pm

Signature on AWB

Post by berry » Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:52 pm

Dear all,

please check the attached air waybill; signature portion only. as you can see the signature of the carrier has been made within the box of signature for shipper. there was an ICC opinion which says that in this case the bill of lading will be discrepant. can we apply the same principle here?
Attachments
awb1.JPG
awb1.JPG (72.03 KiB) Viewed 1871 times

Judith
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:59 am

Technically discrepant

Post by Judith » Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:55 am

The name of the agent is clearly typed in the field “Signature of the shipper or his agent”. So, yes, technically, the AWB is discrepant.

Although if I were in a generous mood, I would say that the intent of the signature is clear and it is signed okay.

Related question: Do you think the document would be acceptable if the name of the agent was typed just above “As agents…” or would you still expect the signature to be in the same field? (There isn’t any space…?!)

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

No discrepancy

Post by cristiand969 » Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:18 pm

The intention is very clear that the documents was signed by agent for the carrier. To me this form of typing and signature indicate that the agent has acted both as agent of the shipper and for the carrier, so no discrepancy. The AWB was signed in form required by UCP. The UCp cannot dictate the place where the signature ans stamp should be imposed.

User avatar
berry
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:36 pm

how about this?

Post by berry » Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:53 pm

Thanks for your answer. i let the air waybill without discrepancy. but i agree with judith. technically i can count it as a discrepancy. there was a ICC opinion which deal with similar situation and it was decided to be a discrepancy. sorry, i dont have that in collection. i agree with cristain too. however perhaps only intentions are not always good enough. check the attached bill of lading that i got today. and please put your opinion.
Attachments
untitled.JPG
untitled.JPG (62.18 KiB) Viewed 1817 times

Post Reply