Blog

In an earlier blog, we highlighted that poorly prepared documents can have a severe detrimental impact on a transaction, leading (at best) to delays in settlement.

Whilst a number of the more common discrepancies are due to timing issues (expiry, shipment and presentation period), quite a number of them derive from poorly prepared documents or presentations, including typographical errors or misspellings.

Documentary credit practitioners will be familiar with the fact that such issues can cause all sorts of problems and, in a worst-case scenario, will often lead to a refusal of documents.

However, not all misspellings and typing errors make a document discrepant if they do not affect the meaning or intent of a word or sentence.

The position taken in UCP 600 sub-article 14 (d) is one of "reading data in context" to determine whether or not a conflict exists. This concept also recognises that the data need not be identical, thus allowing for the type of misspelling shown below.

• "machene" instead of "machine" ?
• "fontain pen" instead of "fountain pen" ?
• "invoce" instead of "invoice" ?
• "paking" instead of "packing" ?

Whilst the following example would not be acceptable:

• "model 789" instead of "model 987" ?

It is imperative that practitioners have a thorough understanding of UCP 600, in particular an awareness of the implications of articles 14 and 17-32. It is also strongly recommended that practitioners have an understanding of the ICC publication ‘International Standard Banking Practice for the Examination of Documents under UCP 600' (ISBP 745) which includes reference to misspellings and typing errors.

The issue of typographical errors was again raised in a recent ICC Opinion TA.856rev. An issuing bank refused documents presented under a credit on the basis that the invoice evidenced a contract number inconsistent with that stated in the credit. The issue was that an additional character had been added to the contract number.

Whilst it was acknowledged that a difference existed, this latest Opinion highlighted that in view of the fact the invoice also properly stated the credit number, goods description, and quantities and unit price, it provided sufficient data from the credit to determine that the addition of a further character could be considered a typographical error.   

This specific typographical error was not considered to be a discrepancy.

These issues are covered in more depth within our training modules at www.tradefinance.training