Key takeaways
- Begin with the agreed freight basis rather than a convenient quantity figure.
- Distinguish requested, recorded and disputed quantities in the review.
- Preserve differences between documents instead of choosing a value silently.
- Separate factual reconciliation from the decision about payment entitlement.
Identify the question the evidence must answer
The review may concern the quantity used for an invoice, whether the described cargo matches the agreed shipment or whether a payment condition has been satisfied. These are connected questions, but they do not necessarily require the same evidence.
Read the actual GENCON-based agreement, recap and riders with the responsible reviewer. Identify the words that connect freight to quantity or another agreed basis. Check the current text where interpretation is needed; this preparation process does not supply a universal rule for all editions and amendments.
Write the question narrowly. Instead of asking whether the freight file is complete, ask what evidence supports the proposed invoice basis under the identified provision. A focused question makes it easier to spot a missing document and harder to substitute a familiar but irrelevant figure.
Keep the cargo documents in their proper context
BIMCO identifies CONGENBILL 2022 as a bill of lading associated with GENCON. The actual documents used on the shipment still need to be identified and reviewed on their own terms.
A loading record, an issued transport document and an invoice may serve different purposes. Do not assume that a quantity copied between them has been independently checked. Trace where the figure originated and whether a later document merely repeats it.
Where documents differ, record the nature of the difference. It may involve units, cargo description, a correction or a different measurement basis. The preparer should not select whichever value produces the preferred commercial result. Obtain the relevant explanation from the responsible source and retain the discrepancy for authorised review.
Build a source-to-decision evidence matrix
| Review question | Evidence to identify | What to check | What remains a decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| What freight basis was agreed? | Recap, incorporated text and relevant riders | Edition, amendments and the actual payment wording | Interpretation of the agreed obligation |
| What quantity is being asserted? | The document relied on for that assertion | Cargo, units, source and issue status | Whether it is the appropriate contractual basis |
| Why do documents differ? | Original record and any correction or explanation | Whether the difference is explained consistently | Treatment of an unresolved discrepancy |
| Has an invoice changed? | Prior invoice, revision and supporting communication | Which input changed and why | Approval of the revised amount or position |
| Is a payment condition said to be met? | The specific evidence named in the review | Completion, receipt and any qualification | Whether the condition is satisfied under the agreement |
| What is disputed? | Each party's stated position and supporting material | Precise point of disagreement | Entitlement and response strategy |
Keep the matrix concise and link to the source material. It should guide review rather than become another place where figures are copied without context. A reviewer should be able to move from the question to the relevant evidence and understand any unresolved qualification.
Reconcile quantity without inventing an adjustment
Start by making units and descriptions understandable. If records use different units or bases, identify that before attempting a comparison. Do not perform a conversion without a valid basis and a clear reason for using it.
Ask whether the records describe the same cargo event. A figure associated with a planning estimate may not be intended to describe the completed loading. Likewise, a later correction should be examined for what it changes, rather than assumed to replace every earlier reference.
The commercial review should distinguish an explained difference from an agreed treatment. The parties may understand why two records differ while still disagreeing about which figure governs the payment question. That distinction is useful: it narrows the dispute without pretending to resolve it.
If a specialist measurement or cargo explanation is required, obtain it from the responsible qualified party. The broker or coordinator can collect and organise the material, but should not supply a technical conclusion merely to make the freight file appear complete.
Fictional case: the invoice follows a copied planning figure
A fictional voyage file contains an early cargo planning figure, a later loading record and an invoice prepared from a familiar template. The invoice uses the planning figure because it was already present in the commercial team's working sheet.
During review, the preparer notices that the supporting documents do not all describe the same stage of the shipment. Instead of replacing the invoice quantity automatically, the team first checks the agreed freight basis and asks the issuer to explain the difference.
The authorised reviewer then has a clear question: which evidence supports the contractual payment basis, and does the invoice reflect it? The preparer has improved the decision without deciding entitlement or assuming that the most recent quantity must always govern.
Separate the invoice check from the payment instruction
A commercial reviewer may conclude that the evidence supports an invoice position, while finance still needs to apply its own authorisation and beneficiary checks. Keep those responsibilities distinct. A well-supported cargo quantity does not authenticate a bank instruction.
If a revised invoice arrives with changed payment details, treat both changes explicitly. The quantity explanation and the beneficiary verification answer different questions. One should not be used as a reason to skip the other.
The working record should show what has been reviewed, by whom and what remains pending. Avoid a single approved label that conceals whether it refers to the commercial basis, invoice administration or authority to make payment. The company should be able to identify the actual decision behind the status.
Prepare a focused response to a discrepancy
Where the parties disagree, organise the evidence around the specific point. Identify the agreed wording under review, the competing factual assertions and the documents supporting each. This helps the authorised negotiator or adviser ask a precise question rather than exchange complete files repeatedly.
Do not describe a disputed interpretation as a confirmed error. Equally, do not obscure a straightforward administrative mistake behind vague language about a complex claim. Separate factual correction, contractual interpretation and commercial settlement discussion so each can be handled by the right person.
Preserve the relevant communications and any applicable submission requirements identified by the adviser. This guide does not set a deadline or assume that sending a file satisfies a contractual condition. The actual agreement and circumstances must determine those questions.
Common mistakes
A familiar quantity can be copied into an invoice without checking its purpose. Other mistakes include treating repeated figures as independent evidence, resolving discrepancies silently and using commercial approval as payment authority. Start with the contractual question, trace the source and retain unresolved differences for the responsible reviewer.
Where Zeaclub fits
Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.
Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.
Explore Zeaclub
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Which quantity should be used for freight?
Identify the agreed freight basis and the evidence relevant to it. Do not assume that a planning figure, loading record or transport document automatically governs every GENCON-based arrangement.
Does a difference between documents prove an invoice is wrong?
No. First establish whether the documents use the same units, basis and cargo event. The contractual treatment of an explained difference may still require review.
Can the coordinator resolve a technical quantity question?
The coordinator can organise the evidence and obtain clarification. A technical conclusion should come from the responsible qualified source, while contractual interpretation remains with the authorised reviewer.
What should be sent for a disputed freight review?
Provide the precise question, relevant agreed text, competing assertions and supporting documents. Keep commercial entitlement, administrative correction and payment verification distinct.