A Study on the Legal Effectiveness of Unknown Wording and on Deck Indication of the Article 26 of UCP 600

UCP 600 제26조 상의 부지문언과 갑판적재표시의 법률적 효력에 관한 연구

  • 박성철 (배화여자대학교 국제무역과)
  • Received : 2016.01.12
  • Accepted : 2016.02.19
  • Published : 2016.02.29

Abstract

This study aims to review the article 26 of UCP 600. The article 26 of UCP 600 deals with 'on deck cargo' and 'unknown wording' in L/C transaction. The article 26 of UCP 600 says that a transport document stating that the goods may be carried on deck is accept able. UCP 600 requires to reject transport documents which evidence that the goods are or will be loaded on deck. So the bank will not accept the B/L containing a clause stating the goods are or will be loaded on deck. But in practice a container cargo is carried on deck actually but we do not describe this fact on the Bill of Lading. The deck stowage is not allowed under the clean B/L. But in case of container cargo, the carrier has the right to carry the container on deck in practice. In spite of this practice the carrier can not describe this fact correctly like this : "The container cargo loaded on deck". If carrier describes on B/L like this, the bank rejects the B/L in L/C transaction. So the carrier describes as "the goods may be carried on deck" on the back of the B/L. But they loaded the container on deck actually. This article suggests some ideas on this matter. In addition, the article 26 of UCP 600 says that a transport document bearing a clause such as "shipper's load count" or "said by shipper to contain" is acceptable. This means that a carrier has no responsibility on the contents of containers. In case of FCL Cargo, it is impossible for a carrier to check the details of container cargo. Therefore it is inevitable to insert the expressions such as "SLC(shipper's load and count)" or "STC(said to contain)". The wording described on the face of B/L should be interpreted as intended and consistently. The intention of the carrier is not the actual quantity or weight. So unknown wording does not represent the actual quantity or weight. But some cases show that the carriers are indemnified by such insertion but others reject the effectiveness of such insertion. So this study emphasizes that unknown wording can not fully indemnify the carriers and that the insertion of such expressions shall be minimized.

Keywords

References

  1. 김인현, "부지문구.약관의 효력", 해양한국, 한국해사문제연구소, 1998.1.
  2. 박세운, "선하증권 인쇄약관에 관한 연구", 무역상무연구 제49권, 한국무역상무학회, 2011.2.
  3. 박세운.한기문, "기명식선하증권의 담보효력", 무역상무연구 제53권, 한국무역상무학회, 2012.5.
  4. 송채헌.박종은. "갑판적 운송화물에 대한 국제물류운송인의 손해배상책임에 관한 연구", Korea Logistics Review 제19권 제2호, 물류학회, 2009.
  5. 신정식, "국제무역거래에서의 서류조건에 관한 연구", 무역상무연구 제54권, 한국무역상무학회, 2012.5.
  6. 유록상, "Hague Rule상의 갑판적 화물의 지위", 해법회지 Vol. 10, No.1, 한국해법학회, 1988.
  7. 유중원, "국제해상운송에서 갑판적과 책임제한의 배제", 법조, Vol.636 법조협회, 2009.
  8. 정영석, "미국법상 갑판적 화물의 책임법리", 해양 한국 233, 한국해사문제연구소, 1993.
  9. 조영철, "선하증권의 부지약관과 부지문언의 유효성에 대한 연구", 한국해운학회지 제25권 제2호, 한국해운학회, 2003,11.
  10. 최종현, "선하증권상의 부지약관의 효력", 한국해법학회지 제25권 제2호, 한국해법학회, 2003.
  11. Aikens. R. et al, Bills of Lading, Informa, London, 2006.
  12. Tetly, W., Marine Cargo claims, 3rd ed., Canada, BLAIS, 1989.
  13. Treitel,G. and F.M.B. Reynolds, Caver on Bill of Lading, Second ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2005.
  14. Hague Rules.
  15. Hague-Visby Rules.
  16. ICC opinion R358.
  17. ICC opinion R419.
  18. ICC opinion TA539.
  19. ISBP 745.
  20. Hamburg rules.