SUPERIMPOSED STAMP ON BL

QUERY
From: NGUYEN THU THUY
Sent: Mon 6/22/2009 4:01 PM
To: Nguyen Huu Duc (DNG)
Subject: Ref: B/L

Kinh chao anh Duc. Em da nhieu lan lam phien anh. Va lan nay em lai co mot tinh huong ve ky phat B/L ma thuc su em con rat phan van lieu co nen bat loi hay khong. Kinh mong anh giup do va tu van giup em.

Em xin mo ta B/L nhu sau:

+ B/L co tieu danh la: D.W.L Cach thuc ky phat B/L

As agent for the carrier (chu in san)
(chữ ký)

D.W.L the Carrier

Co 2 truong hop cach hieu ve tu cach ky B/L nhu tren:

1/ B/L do Carrier ky:

Neu nhu vay thi B/L lai thua doan chu in an san 'As agent for the carrier'.

Tuc la ve logic thi doan in san tren phai xoa di.

Va cach ky phat B/L nhu tren la khong hop le .

2/ B/L do Agent ky:

Neu B/L tren do Agent ky thay mat cho Carrier thi B/L tren da khong chi ra Agent la ai va nhu vay cach ky phat B/L nhu tren la khong hop le .

Xin anh cho y kien ve truong hop B/L nhu tren.

Xin tran trong cam on anh.

Nguyen Thu Thuy-VCB Hai Phong

————————————-

COMMENT
From: Nguyen Huu Duc (DNG)
Sent: Tue 6/23/2009 7:52 AM
To: NGUYEN THU THUY
Subject: RE: B/L

Chào Thủy,

You are welcome!

Theo mô tả của bạn, cách thức ký vận đơn là có thể chấp nhận được. Vận đơn đó được hiểu là do nhà chuyên chở ký.

Trả lời một câu hỏi tương tự như câu hỏi của bạn, ICC đã phân tích và kết luận như sau:

“Một con dấu đóng chồng lên hoặc một hình thức ghi chú khác thể hiện tên và năng lực của người ký vận đơn sẽ thay thế bất kỳ từ ngữ nào được in sẵn mà từ ngữ đó có thể ám chỉ một hình thức ký vận đơn khác.
Miễn là cách thức ký vận đơn đáp ứng được các yêu cầu của các điều quy định về chứng từ vận tải liên quan, chứng từ đó sẽ được chấp nhận”.

Để bạn tham khảo thêm, xin được trích lại nguyên văn phân tích và kết luận của UBNH ICC tại Ý kiến Chính thức TA684 – UCP 600:

“A superimposed stamp or other form of notation that provides evidence of the name and capacity of the party signing the transport document will supersede any pre-printed wording that may imply a different form of signing for that bill of lading.
Provided the manner of signing the transport document meets the requirements of the respective transport article, the document will be acceptable”.

Hi vọng câu trả lời đã rõ.

Thân chào,
Mr. Old Man

—————
Does a superimposed stamp or other form of notation that provides evidence of the name and capacity of the party signing the transport document supersede any pre-printed wording that may imply a different form of signing for that bill of lading?

Official Opinion TA684 – Unpublished UCP 600
From UCP600 – UCP 600 Miscellaneous

QUERY

One of our members has submitted to us the following query regarding application of the signing requirements of UCP transport articles. Our analysis and conclusion are given thereafter for your perusal.
In some transport documents there exist pre-printed statements, other than those in relation to the "Shipped", "Received" or "Taken in charge" positions which, once the document is issued, may not match with superimposed statements. For example, a pre-printed statement reads "Signed for the Master", and the document appears to be signed, by means of a superimposed notation, by a named agent as agent for a named carrier. Or the pre-printed statement reads: "As agent for the carrier", and the document appears to be signed by the carrier identified as the carrier, again by means of a superimposed notation or stamp.
We wish to know whether such mismatching between pre-printed and superimposed statements are to be seen as conflicting data or whether the superimposed notations shall be seen as overriding the pre-printed ones for the simple reason that superimposed or added data evidences the actual or final position taken by the issuer, as of the date of issuance.

National committee analysis and conclusion

The query refers to transport documents bearing, by design, pre-printed statements for purposes of convenience at the time of their issuance. We would state that pre-printed statements in relation to the issuing/signing parties must be examined in such a manner that the intention behind their presence in the document should not create ambiguity concerning the determination of compliance with the credit terms and the UCP transport articles.

For example, ICC Opinion R 354 includes a case in which a named agent signs under the pre-printed statement reading "Signed for the Master/for the Carrier, as agents". It is evident that the original intention behind this pre-printed wording was that one of the two options is to be deleted at the time of issuance. However, when the issuer fails to do that, it creates an ambiguity as to the capacity in which it signs, hence making such issuance unacceptable under the UCP.

With regard to the examples given in the query, the original intention behind the pre-printed statements would seem to be overridden by the superimposed ones, which are to be evidence of the actual or final position taken by the issuer/signer of the document as of the date of issuance. In other words, the issuer/signer, by completing the document by means of superimposed statements, preempts the originally intended function of any pre-printed statement. Therefore, determination of compliance should be based on the actual and final position taken by the issuer/signer by means of the superimposed statement it used, as of the date of issuance, unless the position creates an ambiguity similar to that observed in the case of the Opinion mentioned above.

Analysis and final conclusion

A superimposed stamp or other form of notation that provides evidence of the name and capacity of the party signing the transport document will supersede any pre-printed wording that may imply a different form of signing for that bill of lading.

Provided the manner of signing the transport document meets the requirements of the respective transport article, the document will be acceptable. …