Blog

UCP 600 comparison Part 7 - Disclaimers

18/04/2016

Article 34 - Disclaimer

UCP 82, article 11, contains a disclaimer rule that is not too dissimilar to that which appears in UCP 600, article 34 - "Banks assume no liability or responsibility for the form, sufficiency, correctness, genuineness, falsification or legal effect of any documents or papers, or for the description, quantity, weight, quality, condition, packing, delivery or value of goods represented thereby, or for the general and/or particular conditions stipulated in the documents, or for the good faith or acts of the consignee or any other person whomsoever, or for the solvency, standing, of the carriers or insurers of the goods."

The fact that the context in which the rule is drafted has not changed in over 80 years is testament to the drafting skills of those involved with the development of UCP 82.

 

Article 35 - Disclaimer

The content of UCP 82, article 12, "Banks assume no liability or responsibility for the consequences arising out of delay and/or loss in transit of cables or telegrams, letters and/or documents, or for delay, mutilation or other errors in the transmission of cables or telegrams, or for errors in translation or interpretation of technical terms, and Banks reserve the right to transmit credit terms without translating them." remained largely unamended through all of the revisions of UCP until the addition of reference to loss of documents in transit in UCP 600.

UCP 290 updated the text slightly to incorporate reference to ‘telex' which was a common communication method at that time.

UCP 400 took the view to be more generic and make reference to "any telecommunication" rather than list out the various options for sending a message.

 

Article 36 - Force Majeure

UCP 82, article 13, stated "Banks assume no liability or responsibility for consequences arising out of the interruption of their business either by a decision of a public authority, or by strikes, lockouts, riots, wars, acts of God or other causes beyond their control. On credits expiring during such interruption of business, Banks will be able to make no settlement after expiration, except on specific instructions from their principal."

Once again, the context of the rule has not changed materially since 1933.

UCP 151, article 13, removed reference to "instructions from their principal" and replaced it with "unless specifically authorized."

 

Article 37 - Disclaimer

UCP 82, article 14, stated: "Banks utilising the services of another Bank assume no liability or responsibility towards their principal (unless they themselves are at fault) should the instructions they transmit not be carried out exactly, even if they have themselves taken the initiative in the choice of their correspondent. Banks consider themselves authorised to make provision for credits with the Banks whose services they utilise, for the account and at the risk of the principal, and without any responsibility. The principal (purchaser) is responsible to the Banks for all obligations imposed upon the latter by foreign laws and customs."

This article has now been broken down in more recent revisions of UCP.

In UCP 151, reference to "principal (purchaser)" was changed to "applicant".

UCP 500, sub-article 18 (c) (ii), made reference to the instructing party remaining liable for charges that were due from a party other than the instructing party, but could not be collected.

 

  

www.tradefinance.training


Back to recent articles