• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.221-237
• /
• 2016

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.