Differences Between Article 20 And 21 Of UCP600

[jim]

hi there

can someone tell me the differences between article 20 and 21 of UCP 600

regd

Jim

[shahriar]

dear Jim

There is no difference in the wordings of these two articles except that article 21 has the word "non-negotiable sea waybill” instead of bill of lading. however these two article have seperate purpose. atricle 20 deals with a negotiable document. on the other hand, article 21 deals with a document which is not a document of title. non negotiable sea waybill is used for a short distance where ships often reach the destination before the document. since the non negotiable document needs not to be presented at the destination port, the consignee can easily realse the goods.

regd

shahriar

[cristiand969]

One more word...
While a non-negotiable seawaybill shows a straight consignment (i.e consigned to a named party), the B/L subject to art.20 is always issued to THE ORDER of a named party, making it title of property over the goods and transferable instrument by endorsement.
The sea waybill can never be endorsed.
regards
Cristian

[iLC]

dear cristian,

i have a very weak protest to make. i think you will find the following court case interesting

" . . . . the general view of the mercantile world has been for some time that, in order to make bills of lading negotiable, some such words as 'or order or assigns' ought to be in them. . . . [the words] 'unto the above-mentioned consignee or to his of their assigns' . . . [did] not have the impact of rendering the box for inserting the name of the consignee as if the words 'order' had been added. . . . the form [of the bill of lading] contemplates that it may be used both as a straight consigned bill and as a negotiable bill as might be required by the shipper."

although not a perfect match, UNCTAD

4.3. Delivery of the goods to the consignee


The MTO undertakes to perform or to procure the performance of all acts necessary to ensure delivery of the goods:
(a) when the MT document has been issued in a negotiable form "to bearer", to the person surrendering one original of the document, or
(b) when the MT document has been issued in a negotiable form "to order", to the person surrendering one original of the document duly endorsed, or
(c) when the MT document has been issued in a negotiable form to a named person, to that person upon proof of his identity and surrender of one original document; if such document has been transferred "to order" or in blank the provisions of (b) above apply, or
(d) when the MT document has been issued in a non-negotiable form, to the person named as consignee in the document upon proof of his identity, or
(e) when no document has been issued, to a person as instructed by the consignor or by a person who has acquired the consignor's or the consignee's rights under the multimodal transport contract to give such instructions.

whats your opinion?

iLC

[cristiand969]

Dear iLC,
My opinion or my answer if you like on your posting is the following:
A. I think you strive to show us that the world is not perfect and there may be cases , to quote you 'court cases' , which prove that the things might go contrary to what we are discussing here or know. I agree with that because of two particularities:
1. Courts in United States do not recognize the European Law in many aspects including insurance and others.
To respond with a joke which is actually a true fact: On 1967 in one town of Ohio (US) it was promulgated a law stipulating that when two cars meet at a crossroad, one of them waits until the other passes. .
2. You have posted some of terms and conditions of a particular transport (containerized ). What about BIMCO? What about CONGENBIL? However, to bring touch UNCTAD as you shown please read what the negotiable vs seaway vs straight consigned BL are in their views: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/sdtetlb20033_en.pdf
I personally believe that we are discussing here the form mostly used in international transport and not a particular case/group case as you presented and you need not to mark your answer post as a protest even being weak.
One more thing : have you noticed that more and more banks are inserting in their LCs clauses that prohibit BL with those wording you have mentioned?
regards
Cristian

[shahriar]

did i miss something?

have you noticed that more and more banks are inserting in their LCs clauses that prohibit BL with those wording you have mentioned?

which part?

regd

shahriar

[cristiand969]

These sort of :
when the MT document has been issued in a negotiable form to a named person, to that person upon proof of his identity and surrender of one original document; if such document has been transferred "to order" or in blank the provisions of (b) above apply, or
(d) when the MT document has been issued in a non-negotiable form, to the person named as consignee in the document upon proof of his identity, or
....
Those similar clauses were seen for example in MAERSK B/L where debates were whether those BsL fulfill the function of that document since BL incorporate clauses like:
WITH REGARD TO A CLAUSE WHERE THE B/L IS NON- NEGOTIABLE,
WHEREBY THE CARRIER MAY DELIVER GOODS TO THE NAMED CONSIGNED UPON REASONABLE PROOF OF IDENTITY WITHOUT SURRENDER OF AN ORIGINAL B/L OR
WITH REGARD TO DELIVERY OF GOODS AGAINST A B/L, THE CARRIER
REASONABLY BELIEVES TO BE GENUINE, AND THE LIKE.
As B/L is title of property of goods, do that clauses invalidate its function?