Home › Forums › Letters of Credit

TO ORDER BL, NOT ENDORSED

7 replies [Last post]
Sat, 06/27/2009 - 05:21
aasishah
Offline
Joined: 03/03/2009
Posts:
Printer-friendly versionPDF version

Dear All

If I have " To Order" B/L but not endorsed at all on the back side of B/L. Will the Bearer be able to collect the Goods .

Any one, Please advise!

 Thanks, Asif

 

   

 

‹ Documents without any invoice/amount/incoterms reference Form of Standby LC ›
Top
Tue, 06/30/2009 - 01:53
#1
ImranUmer
Offline
Joined: 12/30/2007
Posts:
TO ORDER BL, NOT ENDORSED

To me, there will not be any endorsement required, the bearer of the BL can take the delivery of goods. 

Imran Umer

IamImranUmer@gmail.com

Top
Sat, 06/27/2009 - 06:18
#2
tulsi
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Posts:
TO ORDER B/L

Normally shipping company required backside endorsement.   

 

However select any of the following option, if the original B/L is with your consignee without shipper’s endorsement.

1)       Call back the original B/L and endorse.

2)       Send your no objection letter / indemnity letter through your shipping company “for your approval to issue D/O without backside endorsement of original B/L".

 

Contact: tulsiusha1@yahoo.com    or              tulsipillaiex@hotmail.com

  

Regards

Tulsi / Dubai

 

     

Top
Sat, 06/27/2009 - 06:51
#3
LC Sam
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2007
Posts:
To order bills of lading

It is my understanding that a bill of lading is to order without naming a party to whom it is the order of (i.e. to order of shipper), the document is a bearer document where any party can endorse the bill of lading over to another party.

For a comparative example:

1. Consigned to order, blank endorsed -  Once endorsed, the bill of lading becomes a bearer document. Only the holder of the bill of lading can obtain the goods. The holder of the bill of lading can not transfer title by further endorsing the bill of lading.

2. Consigned to order of shipper - Only the shipper may endorse the bill of lading.  They can either blank endorse it as above or endorse it to the order of another party, such as a bank. In the latter case, title transfers to the bank and then the bank then can endorse the bill of lading over to another party.

3. To order no endorsement - This bill of lading allows the holder of the bill of lading to endorse the bill of lading and transfer title upon endorsement.

I hope this helps out.

Best regards,

LC Sam

Top
Mon, 06/29/2009 - 06:43
#4
Peter M
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2008
Posts:
Query??

I am not sure that option three is correct Sam, or even exists.  The consignee of a Bill of Lading can either be

1. A named party, in which case it is not negotiable and only the named party can take delivery of the goods, or

2. Consigned to the order of the shipper - in this case the shipper may endorse on the reverse "deliver to the order of .................(named party)" or blank endorse by merely signing but leaving consignee details blank (hence "blank endorsed")  Endorsing to the order of another party allows that party to further endorse and transfer title - blank endorsing makes the document a "Bearer" document in that the holder may lay claim to the goods.

If a bill shows in the consginee box only "to order" it has incorrectly issued and needs amendment to "to order of shipper"

Top
Mon, 06/29/2009 - 10:00
#5
LC Sam
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2007
Posts:
Query Response

Peter,

While I agree in priciple that my item 3 creates many issues and may not be acceptable to some carriers or may not be acceptable in some countries, I have seen it.

The most common way I have seen it is a requirement in a letter of credit that the bill of lading be made to order and blank endorsed.  The clause is specific "to order" and not "to order of shipper" or the like.

As a bank examiner, for the above clause "to order, blank endorsed", I would have to accept the document without question to the endorsing party.

It is bad practice, so I do not condone the practice, as it leads to increased risks for all parties in the transaction.  I would definitely prefer specific named parties in this instance.

Best regards,

LC Sam

Top
Mon, 06/29/2009 - 10:27
#6
Peter M
Offline
Joined: 09/02/2008
Posts:
Totally agree Sam

It is a bad practice, and the term "To order" does not mean anything; it should always say "To order of shipper"  It should be a point that advising banks go back on to clarify with an issuing bank, otherwise it will become even more endemic until it is contested in a court of law and our customer loses title through bank inefficiency.

Wow, you can tell it's a Monday, I'm really picky today!

Top
Mon, 06/29/2009 - 14:49
#7
LC Sam
Offline
Joined: 08/09/2007
Posts:
A picky banker???

Peter,

You are just fulfilling the stereotype that all beneficiary's have of bankers today.  In their eyes we are extremely picky when it comes to discrepancies on their documents.

Have a great Monday!

LC Sam

Top