LC call for BL consigned to order and blank endorsed. From my understanding BL should be showing consignee as to order and behind of BL blank endorsed by shipper. If the BL was showing consignee to order and the title was passed from A to B then to C (blank endorsed). the meaning eventually is the same(freely transferable)but the flow is different. is this consider discrepant ? BL's shipper showing A on behalf of C. A and C both is shipper. Thank you in advanced.
The issues on endorsement have been extensively discussed at http://letterofcreditforum.com/content/icc-opinion-ta691. Pl visit this page.
I have a few points to make, in continuation. You said, "From my understanding BL should be showing consignee as to order and behind of BL blank endorsed by shipper." This is incorrect. The B/L can be endorsed (in blank or in full) ONLY BY the last holder. Hence, if it was issued to the order of the consignee, it can be endorsed (once again, in blank or in full) only by the consignee.
This is cumbersome. (The reasons have been explained in the link page cited above.)
A better option is to issue it to the order of anyone closer to home (viz., the shipper, the beneficiary's bank etc.) as consignee and have that consignee endorse the B/L in blank. This is achieved by simply affixing the consignee's seal and signature on the reverse of the B/L.
This is a quick and dirty reponse from me. Hope this helps. Everything said and done, the link given above is a great read. It clarifies all the key issues on endorsements.
Thanks you for the post.
If the B/L is consigned "to order" and blank endorsed, it does not require any further endorsement to transfer to any number of holders in a chain. It becomes a bearer document, and title to the goods (or rather, a right to colllect under the B/L) is passed simply by transfer.
As regards the second part of the question, I should think that for the endorsement, either the shipper's, or the agent's endorsement (indicating that it is acting on behalf of the shipper), would be equally effective.
Apologies if I have misunderstood your question.
If l/c call for the B/L consigned "to order" and blank endorsed,according to the isbp691,the presented b/l must showing consignee "to order" and blank endorsed by the shipper.
You wrote, "It becomes a bearer document, and title to the goods (or rather, a right to colllect under the B/L) is passed simply by transfer."
If I may venture to suggest that, it should read "...is passed simply by delivery".
Have a great day!
LC call for BL consign to order and blank endorsed. I receive a BL consign to order and blank endorsed by A to B to C. BL shipper showing A on behalf of C. is this consider discrepancies ?
yes, agreed with you. if shipper showing A on behalf of C, both endorsement is equally effective.
A is agent of the shipper, C, and the B/L is required to be endorsed in blank. Therefore, C, the shipper, or A, identifying that it is acting on behalf C, must endorse the B/L if the consignee is shown as "To Order".
The B/L has been specially endorsed by the shipper (A) to a third party (B), and B has reendorsed to the agent (C). Therefore, without a subsequent blank endorsement by C, clearly indicating (by stamp or other means) that it is acting on behalf of A, the document remains non-negotiable. i.e "to order" of C, and thus not complying with LC requirements.
after pass on the other party, and the BL subsequently blank endorsed by C which is also shipper, is this stil consider discrepancy?
Sorry, I got confused with the different letterings. I mistakenly stated in my last post that C was agent of A.
However, as it stands, C is the shipper and the final endorsee. The endorsement has come full circle and provided C now blank endorses the B/L, the document will be compliant under the LC. The intervening endorsement are immaterial.