Page 1 of 1
Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:47 pm
by abidbari
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
Re: Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:49 pm
by cristiand969
It seems that XYZ LDT signed in capacity of carrier
What else should be mentioned?
Re: Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:43 am
by abidbari
Signed "For" the carrier not as the carrier or similar.Thats the issue of signing capacity.
Re: Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:00 am
by picant
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
Re: Signing capacity on Bill of Lading
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:52 pm
by cristiand969
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 !