• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.24
• /
• pp.3-23
• /
• 2004

It is our common understanding that the carrier is bound to deliver the goods to the consignee named in a non-negotiable straight bill of lading without its presentation. But recently Court of Appeal, Singapore, held that "where a straight bill of lading is issued it is necessary for the bill of lading to be presented by the consignee to the carrier by sea in order to obtain delivery of the goods. A straight bill of lading, just like a bill of lading to order, confers title including the right to receive the goods mentioned on the bill of lading. Only the possibility of negotiation is excluded. The carrier by sea is liable where he delivers the goods to the consignee named in the straight bill of lading without delivering the bill of lading itself."

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.127-146
• /
• 2016

There are two aims of this research: one is to verify the role of bill of lading and the method of delivery for container goods and the other is to suggest alternative methods for the crisis of bill of lading; that is, goods are arrived in ports but bill of lading is not arrived. The results of the analyses are as follows. First, delivery of container goods should be performed to exchange with bill of lading. Carriers should deliver goods to consignees to exchange with one among the number of issued bill of lading. In addition, when goods are delivered to consignees by the bill of lading, the other bill of lading is invalid. Second, there are several methods of delivery which are not exchanged with bill of lading such as letter of guarantee, surrender bill of lading, sea waybill, non-negotiable straight bill of lading and consignment of bill of lading to a captain. Delivery of container goods should be performed by exchanging bill of lading. In addition, there are two delivery methods by letter of guarantee: one is illegal and the other is legal. If there is damage for a bonafide-fide holder of bill of lading, carriers should make compensation for the damage. These methods consist of the delivery of goods which is not exchanged with bill of lading and there are two advantages of the methods; one is that consignees enjoy saving bonded warehouse fee and quick disposal after arriving goods and the other is that carriers immediately use vessels after unloading containers. However, the methods are based on utmost good faith between a seller and a buyer.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.171-194
• /
• 2005

The CMI Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading were drafted by the Comite Maritime International(CMI) and related specifically to EDI transfers of negotiable bills of lading. The CMI Rules are contractual in nature and the application of the CMI Rules is strictly voluntary. The method adopted in the CMI Rules to enable negotiation of the rights to cargo in a controlled method is based on the introduction of the ‘Private Key’. The Bolero service will be governed by a multilateral contract called the Bolero Rule Book which specifies the rights and responsibilities of Bolero and its users. The Title Registry and Bolero Bill of Lading provide a fully functional equivalent to the paper bill of lading. The Bolero Bill of Lading can be created, transferred, amended, and surrendered by way of designating to order party, blank endorsement, refusal by the transferee etc. In Japan, through TEDI Project, the RSP Model is introduced as e-trade solution like Bolero's Solution. The RSP Model Solution will be furnished through TC(Trade Chain) Server and RSP(Repository Service Provider) Server. The purpose of this paper is to analyze comparatively the CMI Rules and Bolero Bill of Lading and RSP Model of TEDI and to find the implications in this case study for quick introduction of electronic Bill of Lading.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.23 no.6
• /
• pp.113-130
• /
• 2019

Purpose - This paper investigates applicability of blockchain based bill of lading under the current legal environment. Legal requirements of electronic bill of lading will be analyzed based on the Rotterdam Rules and recently enacted UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records. Using comparative analysis with the previous registry model for electronic bill of lading, this paper examines the advantages of blockchain based bill of lading. Design/methodology - This research reviewed previous efforts for dematerializing bill of lading with its limitation. Main features of blockchain technology which can make up for deficiencies of registry model also be investigated to analyze whether these features can satisfy the requirements for the legal validity of the negotiable electronic transport record or electronic transferable records under the Rotterdam Rules and the MLETR. Findings - Main findings of this research can be summarized as follows: Blockchain system operated in an open platform can improve transparency and scalability in transfer of electronic bill of lading by assuring easy access for transaction. Distributed ledger technology of blockchain makes it more difficult to forge or tamper with transactions because all participants equally shares identical transaction records. Consensus mechanism and timestamp in a blockchain transaction guarantee the integrity and uniqueness of a transaction. These features are enough to satisfy the requirements of electronic transferable records under the Rotterdam Rules and MLTER. Originality/value - This study has significance in that it provided implications for the introduction of electronic bill of lading by analyzing whether the blockchain based electronic bill of lading model meets the legal requirements under the current legal system prepared prior to the introduction of blockchain technology, and by presenting the advantages of the blockchain based bill of lading model through comparative analysis with the existing registry model.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.6
• /
• pp.11-51
• /
• 1993

This study is focused on the problems and the suggestions of proper ideas for solving them which are arisen from appling CIF, Incoterms 1990 into the contract of sale after reviewing of the contents of traditional CIF contract and the main changes of CIF, Incoterms 1990. This study summerized as follows: First, when the seller provide the buyer with non-negotiable sea waybill or inland waterway document instead of negotiable bill of lading, it is my feeling that the essence of symbolic delivery in traditional CIF contract is fading. And if the buyer has paid for the goods in advance, or a bank wishes to use the goods as security for a loan extended to the buyer, it is not sufficient that the buyer or the bank be named as consignee in a non-negotiable document. This is true because the seller by new instractions to the carrier could replace the named consignee with someone else. To protect the buyer or the bank it is therefore necessary that the original instructions from the seller to the carrier to deliver the goods to the named consignee be irrevocable. Second, CIF term can only be used for sea and inland waterway transport. When the ship's rail serves no practical purposes such as in the case of roll-on/roll-off or container traffic, CIP term instead of CIF term is more appropriate to use. Third, the EDI method still contains many legal and technical problems to be solved in order to be used thoroughly' in the international sale of goods. Therefore, the parties wishing to replace the traditional paper-based trade documents by electronic messages must exchange the agreement on EDI each other in order to prevent and sol ye unexpected problems. Forth, it may be that the goods are to be carried in bulk without such marking or naming of consignee as would amount to appropriation. Then the risk will not pass until effective appropriation has been made. Therefore, the seller needs to appropriate by issuing of separate bills of lading or delivery orders for parts of the bulk cargo. And in case the goods are bought while they are carried at sea, some problems on the passing of risk would arise. One possibility is that the buyer might have to assume risks which have already occured at the time when the contract of sale is entered into force. The other possibility would be to let the pissing of the risk concide with the time when the contract of sale is concluded. The parties are advised to ascertain the applicable law and any solution which might follow there form. Finally, Incoterms are restricted to deal with the main principles for the division of functions, costs and risks between the parties and the rest is left to their individual contract as supplemented by the custom of the trade, the individual terms of the contract of sale and the applicable law. Thus, the parties are advised to ascertain the applicable law on their individual contract of sale in order to solve the problems on the transfer of property, the remedy and so on.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.317-358
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the key differences of the sea waybill and electronic B/L in the international transport documents. Sea waybills look remarkably like ordinary bills of lading. Indeed, in two important ways, they are just like bills of lading: the front of the document will near a description of the quantity and apparent condition of the goods; and the back of the document provides evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. They differ from bills of lading in that, far from indicating that the goods described are deliverable to the order of the shipper or of the consignee, they will make it explicit that the goods are deliverable only to the consignee. Again, different carries will do thai in a variety of ways. For example, the document may call itself non-negotiable, omitting the word order from the consignee box on the front of the document, and stating explicitly that the goods will be deliverable to the consignee or his authorised representative on proper proof of identity and authorisation. The Hague-Visby Rules and Hamburg Rules give no guidance as to any right to instruct the carrier in respect of goods while they are in transit. However, in applying Article 50 of the Rotterdam Rules, in particular when applying it in the context of seawaybills, straight bills of lading or ship's delivery orders, regard would need to be had to preserve the shipper's rights under any of those three documents even after the buyer of goods covered by them has acquired rights of its own. And, the right of control is defined at Article 1.12 of the Rotterdam Rules. The right to give instruction is further limited by the terms of Article 50.1 to three particular types of instruction in respect of the goods, relating broadly to the goods, their delivery en route, and the identity of the consignee. And, the CMI formulated the CMI Uniform Rules for Sea Waybills for voluntary incorporation into any contract of carriage covered by such a document. Recognising that neither the Hague nor the Hague-Visby Rules are applicable to sea waybills, the CMI Rules provide that a contract of carriage covered by a waybill shall be governed by whichever international or national law, if any, would have been compulsorily applicable if the contract had in fact been covered by a bill of lading or similar document of title.