• 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.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.

• 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.