• KIPS Transactions on Software and Data Engineering
• /
• v.11 no.7
• /
• pp.283-290
• /
• 2022

Blockchain is a technology that secures integrity and transparency by distributing and storing transaction details within multiple node networks. Recently, research is being conducted to secure integrity by applying blockchain to Bill of Lading (B/L documents) of monetary value. In this paper, we study a blockchain-based bill of lading system to improve usability. The shippers register the issued bill of lading on the blockchain, and banks in each country read it to conduct L/C transactions. The consignees receive the goods after completing certification with a quick response code (QR) containing the bill of lading information. Through this, shippers enjoy merits in that they can shorten the time and cost of sending shipping documents by mail and prove the integrity of the documents. The consignees have the advantage of being able to check the documents at the same time as they are registered and trust the transaction. Finally, on the bank side, the security of shipping documents is ensured and verification can be done quickly.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.31-52
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This study mainly investigates two potential legal regimes expected to govern the use of electronic bills of lading: the Rotterdam Rules (2009) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (2017). Widespread use of electronic bills of lading has been unsuccessful partly due to the absence of a uniform legal regime and protracted uncertainties. This paper aims to carry out an assessment of the possibilities where either of two potential legal regimes could provide certainty to the effect and validity of the use of electronic bills of lading, and contribute to the facilitation of electronically transferring the rights to goods carried by sea. Design/methodology - This paper first introduces two legal instruments and the relevance to electronic bills of lading. Since neither of these legal instruments has yet entered into force, the following section looks into the ratification or enactment possibilities based on a literature review and track records of the past legal regimes of the same kind. Assessment of the different adoption possibilities further requires comparative work of the two legal instruments, which will be based on an analysis of relevant provisions and a literature review. The literature review on the Rotterdam Rules delves into various studies and data produced since the UNCITRAL's adoption in 2009. The literature review on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records heavily relies on UNCITRAL working group documents from 2011 to 2017 together with the final explanatory note. Findings - The main findings can be summarized as follows. Application of the Rotterdam Rules would negate the role of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records assisting in the implementation of the Rotterdam Rules due to some conflicting issues. Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law alone can sufficiently provide a higher level of certainty in the use and effect of electronic bills of lading so long as lawmakers and parties are aware of some issues with the application. What concerns potential users most is the extension of the status quo, where neither of the legal instruments have any effect. It is necessary to take a number of alternatives into consideration, such as promotion of standard clauses and confirmation by a court ruling. Originality/value - Existing studies focus either on the Rotterdam Rules or on the UNCITRAL Model Law, but not both. Not many papers have yet dealt with the Model Law, which was adopted by UNCITRAL only 2 years ago, particularly in the context of a potential legal regime for electronic bills of lading. This paper attempts to introduce the differences between the two legal instruments in regulating the use of electronic bills of lading while providing an assessment of the various possibilities for which parties involved in international trade can be better prepared for the changing legal environment.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.111-136
• /
• 2010

Bill of lading means the transport document ("marine", "ocean" or "port-to-port" or similar), however named, covering sea shipment only. Data in a bill of lading, when read in context with the credit, the document itself and international standard banking practice, need not be identical to, but must not conflict with, data in that document, any other stipulated document or the credit, according to UCP 600 and ISBP. This article has provided the general guideline of the discrepancies on the basis of UCP 600, ISBP 681 and the ICC Banking Commission Opinions, for the solution of the unpaid problems of the credit transactions. I have studied especially the ICC Banking Commission Opinions and the DOCDEX Decisions on the bill of lading after UCP 600, the international standard banking practice (ISBP 681), and the recent Korean cases. As such, this article would fill a need gap in the market between the general principles in the UCP provisions and the daily job of the practitioner. The credit practitioners are suggested to this resulting guidance whenever doubts arise as to how to check the credit documents in daily practice.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.68
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study is to propose a new mechanism for the global transmission of electronic trade documents and to promote them using it. Trade settlement methods are changed from L/C bases to non-L/C bases and in particular, the telegraphic transfer is dramatically increased since mid 1990. But the status of transmission of electronic trade documents still rely on the letter of credit and bill of lading. So it need to change the process of transmission of electronic trade documents utilizing non-negotiable sea waybill instead of bill of lading. In this study, I pointed out two problems as obstacle factors in global transmission of electronic trade documents. First is the system connection problem between domestic and foreign banks and second is the electronic right transfer problem in the bill of lading. Electronic bill of lading has already been made, but are not used and e-Nego has also not been activated under the above issues. Therefore, it should be solved previously the above problems for the global transmission of electronic trade documents under the letters of credit. However, in transactions of transfer, it does not need the inter-bank connection and also does not occur the electronic right transfer problem of bill of lading if using the non-negotiable seaway bill instead of bill of lading. In this paper, I recommend the global transmission strategies of e-trade documents using the non-negotiable sea waybill in transactions of transfer. Hopefully, I expect the activation of global transmission of e-trade documents through the utilization of electronic non-negotiable sea waybill as suggested by this study.

• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2009

In order to establish whether any charterparty terms are incorporated into the bill of lading, the first necessity is to specify the charterparty alluded to the incorporation clause in the bill of lading. However, this becomes a potential problem where the date of a charterparty is not inserted on the face of the bill of lading in case a vessel is in operation under a number of charterparties. Over many years this issue has frequently been raised before the English courts, but it is still causing problems. The purpose of this study is to examines the several English authorities which dealt with the issue relating to the specification of charterparty incorporated into the bill of lading and to present some interpretation rules and the order of priority. As a result, the comparative analysis of English authorities shows that they failed to give dear guidance on this issue. This article therefore suggests four interpretation rules such as the precedence of a B/L's face, the rule of appositeness, surrounding circumstances, the contra proferentem rule and shows that the precedence of a B/L's face is most applicable for all parties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.49-78
• /
• 2010

The seller has to deliver goods and hand over documents as required by the contract. It is very important that ownership of goods shall be transferred by the documents from the seller to the buyer. Where terms of payments is made under documentary payment such as negotiable order Bill of lading or any transport documents for symbolic delivery of goods shall be more important between the parties concerned. The buyer may withdraw or cancel the contract where the buyer accept the foul Bill of Lading and demand damages where the buyer accept the other documents which are not in accordance with requirements by the buyer. Withdraw or cancel of contract can be made where discrepancy of documents comes into fundamental breach of contract. In conclusion transport documents by the seller will be used to determine appropriation of transport document to the contract. Therefore the seller has to deliver the proper shipping documents to the buyer. Where the breach of the seller's obligations to deliver documents the buyer has the right of requiring performance, contract avoided, claiming damage to recover the contract under CISG. The significance of transport documents has been focused in this study and careful examination of documents shall be needed to prevent any dispute or differences between the parties.

• 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.

• 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.