Best Trade Solution

Hi
Is it mandatory for a bill of lading to have the address of the consignee and notify party?

no where in UCP i have found anything that says that address of the consignee or notify party must be mentioned. in that sense, its not mandatory for a transport document to show the address of the consignee or notify party.

but my personal opinion is that address of the notify party and consignee should always be there on the transport document. otherwise it would be really tough for the carrier to to serve notice of arrival to the consignee.

no need unless it is CMR

Dear trade123

NO , UCP/ ISBP donot make it mandatory, but practice more specifically our credits DO.

may refer art 19 of UCP & para 101 to 103 of iSBP for ocean bl (however named ).

Regards
N K Kalra

UCP / ISBP does not require the bill of lading to show the address of the conisignee and notify party.

In fact, in many cases (especially in case of commodity trading), the bill of lading is simply consigned "To Order" and blank endorsed. There is usually no "notify party" on such bills of lading either. This makes it easy for the current owner of the goods to engage in high seas sale.

Hi,
what do mean by the Term "Conversion".? and Why it used in LCs?

Conversion refers to the wrongful disposal of assets which are held in trust.

In the trade process (for both LCs and collections), transport documents are often consigned to the issuing bank (or buyer's bank). This allows the seller to maintain constructive control. The seller expects that the issuing bank will allow the applicant to take control over the goods only if they agree to pay against the documents.

An issuing bank that allows the applicant to take over the goods without payment being made for the documents could be held guilty of conversion.

In the LC context, the issuing bank may issue a shipping guarantee / delivery order before the documents arrive at their counters. At such times, the issuing bank loses the right to refuse documents, not because they are not entitled to under UCP but because if they were to refuse payment, the issuing bank would be held guilty of conversion.

Conversion is a legal term signifying wrongful interference with another person’s property, inconsistent with the owner’s right of possession. It has been defined as follows:
Any person who, however innocently, obtains possession of goods the property of another who has been fraudulently deprived of the possession of them and disposes of them whether for his own benefit or that of another person, is guilty of a conversion.
A banker will be liable for conversion if he delivers to an unauthorised person articles left with him by a customer for safe custody. (Source: Dictionary of Banking and Finance – Derrick G. Hanson – Pitman
Publishing 1985.)