In recent times straight bills of lading have been increasingly used, one of the reasons being that they are not a document of title and their presentation is not required at the port of destination, or at least many believed that a straight bill does not need to be produced. If the straight bill of lading is not a document of title and need not be produced at delivery, this can solve the problem of delivery of goods without a bill of lading. This is so under American law, but obviously the situation is different in many other jurisdictions. After examining various problems related to straight bills of lading, the issue that arises is whether the straight bill of lading as "similar document of title" is necessary? This unresolved issue creates problems and a dilemma is raised of the practical need for straight bills: do we really need it? The need for straight bills can be justified by the interests of various parties, e.g. to serve as security for sellers and banks until payment or for the buyer's security that no one else will be able to claim the goods if he pays for them. On the other hand, when there is no need for sale of goods in transit, and there is a risk of delay of documents, the straight bill can cause problems. Imposing the requirement for presentation of a straight bill where it is not necessary can only cause problems. To avoid potential problems, the straight bills can be defined as not negotiable documents, having the same features of the sea waybills. If straight bills are not really needed, and sea waybills may replace them, the use of the term "non-negotiable bill" instead of "straight bill" may help avoiding the confusion, and the term "straight bill" will then disappear in the future.
展开▼
