• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.235-260
• /
• 2012

The CMI Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading were based on sound principles that are now reflected in the provisions of the Rotterdam Rules, which provide for the use of electronic equivalents to bills of lading. Services involving bills of lading which exist in electronic form for at least part of their lives, and which use encryption to guarantee integrity and security of these electronic records, are already being offered by a number of carriers, among them APL. The relative success of APL's system demonstrates that the use of a system which embodies the basic ideas and processes underlying the CMI Rules could easily become a practical reality in the near future. The basic principles in the CMI Rules and the Rotterdam Rules adopt a minimum requirements approach and does not flesh out the details of procedures for the use of electronic bills. This is an improvement, as it allows adaptability to future technological developments. Successful electronic bill of lading systems can only be developed in response to customer demand, and carriers are in the best position to gauge this and design systems to cater for it. APL has demonstrated this by creating a system which is tailor-made to its customers' requirements. The CMI Rules were correct in their assumption that electronic bill of lading services should be provided by carriers. They also seem to have anticipated that the switch to the electronic medium would not be sudden and complete, but would require a gradual phasing out of paper documents over a long period of time.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• pp.153-176
• /
• 2000

The U.K. Bills of Lading Act 1855 had sought to circumvent the problems arising from the doctrine of privity of contracts. Among the principal factors in the introduction of the Act was the exceptional decision of the court in the case of Grant Norway. The Act 1855 was intended to reverse Grant Norway, but has no effect whatever. As it was not properly drafted, there had been a lot of situations where the Act 1855 was not applicable. In those cases, the courts have implied a contract between cosignee and carrier. This is the effect of the common law Brandt v. Liverpool doctrine. With the enactment of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, all of the problems shall be resolved. It repeals the Act 1855 and replaces it with provisions covering not only B/L but also sea waybills and ship's delivery orders. According to the new law, title to sue is now vested in the lawful holder of a bill of lading, the consignee identified in a sea waybill or the person entitled to delivery under a ship's delivery order, irrespective of whether or not they are owners of the goods covered by the document.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.389-409
• /
• 2012

The Switched Bill of Lading(SBL) has been in frequent use in recent years as intermediary trade increases with the growing number of companies' overseas subsidiaries. Its frequent use, though, has brought about disputes regarding its illegal issue. Although there are several legal cases regarding this, studies on this issue are hard to find. Therefore, this study tries to provide countermeasures and precautions against unlawful issues of SBL through examining the legal cases resulting from illegal issuing practices of SBL. When the Switched Bill of Lading is issued, the shipper, consignee, port of loading and unloading, and shipping date of the original bill of lading are usually changed. Statements which may put the shipper at a disadvantageous position may also be deleted and/or the bill of lading may be either divided or integrated when it is issued. However, if the carrier issues the SBL 1)without withdrawing original BL, 2)indicating the shipping date, port of loading and port of discharge falsely, or 3)deleting the statements which may give him disadvantages, it may be regarded as an illegal issue. These unlawful issues of SBL may pose a huge threat to the shipper, banks and the parties relating to the trade. That is, the shipper may take a substantial loss when the goods can be delivered to a third party by SBL without his collecting the proceeds. The issuing bank and the negotiating bank may also have their security rights to the goods hampered by the illegal and improper issue of SBL. In most cases, the carrier has no choice but to issue the SBL without collecting the original BL for fear of hurting the relationship with the intermediary traders. This practice of issuing more than two sets of BL may pose a potential risk to the carrier.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.431-451
• /
• 2013

The aim of this study is to thoroughly review prior literature related to electronic bill of lading and investigate the current state of electronification of operational processes of both major international and domestic shipping lines. In addition, this study examines the meaning of Electronic Bill of Lading; the perception on Electronic Bill of Lading; and the impediment to Electronic Bill of Lading in the perspective of shipping lines. As a result, following obstacles deter further development of e-B/L: negative attitude on the utilization of e-B/L; the matter of trust on the utilization of e-B/L; and technical issues in relation to the use of e-B/L.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.285-313
• /
• 2011

There can be analyzed severally on the acceptance conditions of freight forwarder's transport document under UCP. First, Bills of Lading issued by forwarding agents will be refused. This can be seen in the article 20 of 1933 Revision UCP(Brochure 82) and the article 20 of 1951 Revision UCP(Brochure 151). Second, Unless specifically authorized in the credit, Bills of Lading issued by forwarding agent will be rejected. It is prescribed in the front part (a) of article 17 of 1962 Revision UCP(Brochure 222) and the article 19 of 1974 Revision UCP(Publication No. 290). Third, Acceptance conditions are different according to the type of transport documents, that is either Bill of Lading or not. It is prescribed in the art 25 and article 26 of 1983 Revision UCP. Unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, transport document issued by a freight forwarder will be rejected unless it is the FIATA Combined Transport Bill of Lading approved by the International Chamber of Commerce or otherwise indicates that it is issued by a freight forwarder acting as a carrier or agent of a named carrier. On the other hand, unless otherwise stipulated in the credit, marine bill of lading issued by a freight forwarder will be rejected, unless it indicates that it is issued by such freight forwarder acting as a carrier, or as the agent of a named carrier. Fourth, transport documents issued by a freight forwarder will be accepted. This can be found in the article 30 of 1993 Revision UCP(ICC Publication No. 500) and the article 14 l of 2007 Revision UCP(ICC Publication No. 600). According to the former unless otherwise authorized in the Credit, transport document issued by a freight forwarder will only be accepted if it is appears on its face to indicate the name of the freight forwarder as a carrier or multimodal transport operator or its agent. The latter prescribed that a transport document will be accepted if it is issued by a freight forwarder by a agent of carrier or freight forwarder itself.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.23
• /
• pp.249-288
• /
• 2004

The active use of the container vessel has brought with it high speed and reduced transit time ; however, the system of delivering the goods via B/L at the destination has lagged behind technical advances, becoming a burden to today's international traders, especially consignees and/or importers. More recently the sea waybill(SWB), that is to say an ocean-type AWB, has come on the scene. In Europe and the USA the use of SWB has increased significantly, but has also left room for improvement due to its short history of use. However, Recently, more attention is paid to SWB as a means to solve the B/L Crisis is getting more and more serious. In addition, due to its non-negotiability, the sea waybill could easily be replaced by messages sent between the interested parties by Electronic Data Interchange. With the paper document, transfer of title is fulfilled by transferring the original bill of lading to the buyer of the goods. However, in an electronic environment this is difficult to replicate. A number of solutions have been investigated, including using an electronic bill of lading, by controlling changes in title to goods through irrevocable, but transferable instructions to the carrier, or by appointing an independent electronic data registry, or replacing the bill of lading with a sea waybill, which is non-negotiable. The purpose of this study is to investigate some problems which may hinder SWB from coming into wide use and to analyse how to solve problems due to introduction of electronic sea waybill.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.189-211
• /
• 2011

This article aims at analysing the practical problems of FOB and CIF terms relating to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 in case of L/C transactions and presenting the defending measures against them. According to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010, FOB and CIF terms are to be used only for sea or inland waterway transport and require the seller deliver the goods on board the vessel nominated by the buyer at named port of shipment. So if FOB and CIF terms will be used in sea transport under L/C transaction, the seller should ship the goods on the nominated vessel and present the shipping document indicating "on board vessel" to the issuing bank but the parties agree to present the received bill of lading according to special condition on L/C which is" received bill of lading are acceptable". In practical transaction, FOB and CIF terms are usually used in aircraft cargo, container cargo or multimodal transport. these facts are a violation of Incoterms. Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 which regulated that FOB and CIF terms may not be appropriate where goods are handed over the carrier before they are on board the vessel for example goods in container. These transactions are a temporary expedient and breach of Incoterms in the international trade which must be corrected as soon as possible.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.191-209
• /
• 2022

Whether or not insurance policies are securities has been debated for nearly a century. The position of claiming that an insurance policy has securities properties is premised on the concomitant nature of the maritime cargo insurance policy to the bill of lading. However, in reality today, marine cargo insurance policies are transferred between parties involved in international trade as an integral part of the bill of lading, and the two securities go through the same distribution process. The issue of recognizing the securities properties of an insurance policy is particularly debated when the insurance policy is issued in a order or bearer form. In a normal insurance policy, the name of the right holder, such as the claimant, is written on the insurance policy, and it is not usually transferred by endorsement. In principle, insurance policies are interpreted as neither securities nor negotiable securities. Sometimes, research is being done on legal reform to respond to digitalization of securities, and bills of lading are the subject of research. If marine cargo insurance policies, which are sometimes premised on distribution, have securities properties, the status of the regulations on digitization of bills of lading currently being studied may be helpful for digitization of marine cargo insurance policies. Under these circumstances, the securities of marine cargo insurance policies are reviewed based on recent practices.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.47-66
• /
• 2013

This article reviews some problems arises from signing by the master bills of lading issued on time chartered ship. The underlying purpose of time charters is generally for the charterers to have the services of the vessel in order to engage in the business of carriage of goods by sea, a business which is likely to involve the issue of bills of lading to shippers. Charterer under the charter have a right to issue B/L, thereby the master must sign bill of lading as presented, but may not vary the contract. Bills of lading signed by, or on behalf of the master, impose contractual liabilities upon the shipowner. Charterer have no right to ask the master to sign a bill of lading in any way deviating from the charterparty. If the shipowner suffers loss as a result of the master obeying any order about employment or agency, he will be entitled to an indemnity from the charterer. The master may refuse to sign bills of lading which contain some discrepancy such as a false statement and manifestly inconsistent with the requirements of the charterparty.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.11
• /
• pp.551-561
• /
• 1998