Signed for the carrier XYZ LTD
(signature)
_________________________
Authorised signatory
* Capacity/identity expressed?
Need your valuable opinion.There is no other indication on B/L.
Thnks-Bari
Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
-
abidbari
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 4:09 pm
- First Name: Abedul
- Last Name: Bari
- Organization: StandardChartered,BD
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: Dhaka, Bangladesh
-
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
Re: Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
It seems that XYZ LDT signed in capacity of carrier
What else should be mentioned?
What else should be mentioned?
-
abidbari
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 4:09 pm
- First Name: Abedul
- Last Name: Bari
- Organization: StandardChartered,BD
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: Dhaka, Bangladesh
Re: Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
Signed "For" the carrier not as the carrier or similar.Thats the issue of signing capacity.
-
picant
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 pm
Re: Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
Hi Pals,
I found a note by Kim Sindberg concerning a similar issue, and I agree with him:
-My interpretation would be that XYZ (at that time Asia Shipping) is indeed the carrier. "Signed for"
I would take to refer to the person working at XYZ, signing the document for them.
Following that line of thinking there is no agent on this b/l.
As said these cases are always tricky-so I may be wrong.....-
---
Having no vision of the document, considering the note of Kim, I think b/l is OK
Other comments appreciated
Ciao ans thanks to Kim
I found a note by Kim Sindberg concerning a similar issue, and I agree with him:
-My interpretation would be that XYZ (at that time Asia Shipping) is indeed the carrier. "Signed for"
I would take to refer to the person working at XYZ, signing the document for them.
Following that line of thinking there is no agent on this b/l.
As said these cases are always tricky-so I may be wrong.....-
---
Having no vision of the document, considering the note of Kim, I think b/l is OK
Other comments appreciated
Ciao ans thanks to Kim
-
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
Re: Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
Dear Bari
I don't know as to why you started on to the assumption that my answer was intended for the wording 'as carrier' or similar...and not 'for the carrier'.....
When somebody (an individual) signs for (or on behalf) on a legal entity (XYZ in this case) , it means that such signature is legally binding on that company and is considered the signature of that company. There is no indication that other /different entity has apparently signed FOR (an)other person (CARRIER) so as to claim missing of signing party's capacity.
Picant has covered well this question, no other comment, I believe, is needed except for the fact that the banks assume no liability for the legal effect of such signature made FOR the carrier .
Perhaps the wording 'FOR' is a confusing one in connection with UCP600 or ISBP as such construction includes another entity (qualified as agent). However, to raise as a discrepancy you should be able to demonstrate that such signature is not as that of the carrier (as a legal entity) and belongs to other legal entity who has signed for the carrier. Remember that each legal entity is represented or bound by acts of authorized individuals/representatives Maybe you should ask a lawyer from the place of B/L issuance what is the difference, legally speaking, between signed 'For' ans signed 'by'
That is because is a legal issued with your question
Good luck !
I don't know as to why you started on to the assumption that my answer was intended for the wording 'as carrier' or similar...and not 'for the carrier'.....
When somebody (an individual) signs for (or on behalf) on a legal entity (XYZ in this case) , it means that such signature is legally binding on that company and is considered the signature of that company. There is no indication that other /different entity has apparently signed FOR (an)other person (CARRIER) so as to claim missing of signing party's capacity.
Picant has covered well this question, no other comment, I believe, is needed except for the fact that the banks assume no liability for the legal effect of such signature made FOR the carrier .
Perhaps the wording 'FOR' is a confusing one in connection with UCP600 or ISBP as such construction includes another entity (qualified as agent). However, to raise as a discrepancy you should be able to demonstrate that such signature is not as that of the carrier (as a legal entity) and belongs to other legal entity who has signed for the carrier. Remember that each legal entity is represented or bound by acts of authorized individuals/representatives Maybe you should ask a lawyer from the place of B/L issuance what is the difference, legally speaking, between signed 'For' ans signed 'by'
That is because is a legal issued with your question
Good luck !