Best Trade Solution

Hi

As per the L/c requirement. full set of B/L to the order of shipper and blank endorsed is required.

While examining the documents, identified a phrase in b/l as " Original bills of lading not required to take delivery of goods" .

so we have quoted this as discrepancy.

Please let me know is it right or wrong
.
regards
sln

hello,

the issue is very debatable and even ICC is split over it. you may refer to ICC opinion TA675. i see two ways here; one to consider it as a terms and condition and another to treat it as a discrepancy considering the fact that it affect the very fundamental of a negotiable transport document and thus fails to serve its purpose.

as far as the case given by you, i would like to treat it as a discrepancy. because there is no standard about which are terms and condition and which are not. but it is certain that bill of lading with such a clause may be good for nothing to the holder.

other comment appreciated

This reminds me of the so-called structure LC. I came across it in a seminar by Mr. Vincent O'Brien. Regretfully I didn't understand what he explained. The LC requires copy for all kinds of documents including BL. He told us this LC did exist.
I will find more time asking him for more explanation.

dear,
I agree with shahriar but wanna know the language of discrepancy notice.
Nesar

The B/L contradicts itself. While it is stated that goods can be released without presentation of B/L , title of goods is transferred by endorsement. When goods arrive at POD, the carrier will not know who is the right owner of the goods as he has no control over the succesive endorsements on B/L.
While there is an apparent contradiction in a/m text, the clause of releasing goods without presentation of a TRUE NEGOTIABLE DOCUMENT, makes the document not to fulfill its function.
brgds