• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제24권
• /
• 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."

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제53권
• /
• pp.181-206
• /
• 2012

The straight bill of lading is regarded as the documents of title except in American law after The Rafaela S case. The Carewins case also decided that the exclusion clause of bill of lading did not exempt carriers from liability when the carriers delivered the cargo to the consignee without the production of original bill of lading. And the court said that the carrier was responsible for delivering the goods against a forged bill of lading regardless of exemption clause of bill of lading in the Motis case. It may be assumed through these cases that the straight bill of lading as a document of title gives documentary security to the banks in trade finance. However, there can be some downside to the efficacy of the straight bill of lading as collateral. First, when it is subject to the English law, the shipper can arbitrarily change the consignee different from the one named in the document. Second, some bills of lading bear provisions relating to the carrier delivering the goods upon reasonable proof of identity without the surrender of an original and/or genuine bill of lading.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• 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.

• 한국전자거래학회지
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.187-206
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study is to review the process for the trade settlement system between all parties involved in the commercial transaction under SURF System. SURF application is the latest value added service from bolero.net and a fully automated documentary settlement system. It extends bolero.net's capability to enable trade transactions by providing a delivery versus payment system. It has been designed as a standard, shared, infrastructure component for handling trade settlement within an electronic environment to keep step with the operation of electronic Bolero bill of Lading. It exploits the services provided by the Bolero Core Messaging Platform - secure, guaranteed transactions based on boleroXML standards to provide document compliance services with optional bank guarantees. So, SURF system can automatically check all commonly used trade documents such as commercial invoices, bills of lading and certificates of weight and analysis, etc and supports a full range of settlement options including Open Account, Documentary Collections, Documentary Credit. 58 have key features as follows, ① automatic document compliance checking, ② integrated with the Title Registry, ③ supports various forms of vender financing, ④ governed by a set of legally binding rules, ⑤ fully prepared for Straight-Through-Processing, ⑥ Enabled compliance with UCP 500.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• 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.