Hi!
UCP 600 transport article requires the transport document to show the name of the carrier. if a carrier name is shown but no detail address is given, will it be acceptable. in case of problem, how one can contact with the carrier?
address of the carrier
-
picant
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 pm
I have a note
Hi Pal,
During a meeting on July, 01, 2006 between Italian Banks, someone stated that only UNCITRAL Convention indicate with NAME, the Carrier Head Office with full address. and that from UCP point of view, a transport document with only the commercial denomnation , must be accepted. Probably full address is on the backside , but this is off limit for documents checker, not, indeed, for legal dept.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao
During a meeting on July, 01, 2006 between Italian Banks, someone stated that only UNCITRAL Convention indicate with NAME, the Carrier Head Office with full address. and that from UCP point of view, a transport document with only the commercial denomnation , must be accepted. Probably full address is on the backside , but this is off limit for documents checker, not, indeed, for legal dept.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao
-
shahriar
- Posts: 923
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:03 am
- First Name: Shahriar
- Last Name: Masum
- Organization: Mutual Trust Bank
- Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
- Location: Bangladesh
evidence of contract
a transport document is an evidence of contract between the carrier and the shipper. they are the parties of the contract. i cant think about a contract where the address of the parties is not stated. in fact it may be a mandatory requirement for other related law and therefore without it there can be no legal ground for this contract.
however a consignee or an endorsee is not the party of the contract. rather he or she is a party of the negotiable instrument which does not require any address. so i think when as a bank one is examining the document, there is no reason to refuse a document just because there is no address.
however a consignee or an endorsee is not the party of the contract. rather he or she is a party of the negotiable instrument which does not require any address. so i think when as a bank one is examining the document, there is no reason to refuse a document just because there is no address.