'To Order' Without Mentioning Named Entity In Sea Waybill

[Ashad]

A credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned '' to the order'' of
without naming the entity. Which one of the following is correct?

I. straight cosigned to issuing bank without mentioning ''to the order of''
II. consigned to the order of issuing bank.
III. straight cosigned to applicant without mentioning ''to the order of''
IV. Consigned to the order of applicant.

A. I and III B. I and IV C III and IV D. All of the above

Ans. A

Justification:

ISBP F11) c. When a credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned “to order” without naming the entity to whose order the goods are to be consigned, it is to indicate that the goods are consigned to either the issuing bank or the applicant, without the need to mention the words “to order”.
My questioA credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned '' to the order'' of
without naming the entity. Which one of the following is correct?

I. straight cosigned to issuing bank without mentioning ''to the order of''
II. consigned to the order of issuing bank.
III. straight cosigned to applicant without mentioning ''to the order of''
IV. Consigned to the order of applicant.

A. I and III B. I and IV C III and IV D. All of the above

Ans. A

Justification:

ISBP F11) c. When a credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned “to order” without naming the entity to whose order the goods are to be consigned, it is to indicate that the goods are consigned to either the issuing bank or the applicant, without the need to mention the words “to order”.
My question is what should be the right answer. A or D? If D, how?

[mano]

Dear,
Answer a is correct due to the fact and nature of the document which is non negotiable document which means in transport document it is not a document of title and can not be endorsed and transfer title from one person to another like quasi negotiable bill of lading
This kind of transport document is used in short journey where no need to wait for quasi negotiable bill of blading to be presented you can release the goods without presenting the original document by simple formal identification to the shipping agent at destination
As above no need to indicate it is 'to order' and even if the credit wrongly drafted with this clause the document that is presented with straight consignment will be accepted you can find details under isbp 745 f11 a,b and c
So answer a is more appropriate than answer d
regards

[anwar018]

Well,
I think the more appropriate answer is D.
.
I would like to draw your kind attention some words in ISBP 11) c. When a credit requires a non-negotiable sea waybill to evidence that goods are consigned “to order” without naming the entity to whose order the goods are to be consigned, it is to indicate that the goods are consigned to either the issuing bank or the applicant, without the need to mention the words “to order”.
.....let see the phrase "without the need" it is not the prohibition of use the words "to order". It suggesting not to use but it can be use if credit requres. So, you can use the words "to order" or you can ignore the words in non-negotiable sea waybill even though the credit required.
Now, could you please tell me that can you raise discrepany if the consignor use the words "to order" in the non-negotiable sea waybill? ....... I think no, because ISBP 11) c. not prohibited it. ISBP only shows you the way that if you wish not to use the words "to order", you can do it and it'll not be discrepancy since it is non-negotiable sea waybill.

any comment will be welcome...

[picant]

Hi Pals,

I think that the you interpretation is not correct.
I am no native speaker but it seems to me that the sentence refers to the fact that it may be consigned to issuing bank
without stating to the order, so straight consigned.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao

[gegeeee]

I agree with Picant.

It should be consigned to applicant or issuing bank, but here in option 2 and 4 we have the word ''to the order'', so answer A is correct.

[RAHULCH]

a non negotiable sea way bill ... evn though LC states TO ORDER.. does not require to be stated 'TO ORDER"


ans is definitely "A"

[hardy2175]

The use of ' TO ORDER ' in a non negotiable document is superfluous and has no meaning and the use should be avoided causing unnecessary confusion.

[kishorp]

I. straight cosigned to issuing bank without mentioning ''to the order of''

Dear friends i have a question
Seaway bill is non negotiable transport doc then how will it work in the case it is issued streight consigned to issuing bank
How will bl be transfer to importer
How importer will get custom clearance

[LOAN]

The answer is A.