If the consignee denies it, the judge may not adopt the validity of the corresponding bill of lading.

In the sales contract, the seller usually takes the bill of lading as evidence that he has fulfilled his delivery obligation. In practice, there are three forms of bill of lading, and the proof effect of bill of lading is different with different signing methods:

The first one, the one with the highest authentication effect, is the delivery note stamped by the consignee.

The official seal certificate is highly effective, and the consignee should bear the legal consequences for its official seal. If there is no evidence to the contrary, the court will confirm the probative effect of the bill of lading.

Second, the delivery note signed by the carrier, but not signed by the consignee's responsible person or agent, and without the consignee's official seal.

Only express delivery, consignment, mail and other delivery methods have the carrier's seal. If conditions permit, the bill of lading signed by the consignee can be transferred out. Only the bill of lading signed by the carrier has certain evidential effect. As a transport link between the buyer and the seller, the carrier can usually deliver the goods to the consignee. The defect of this evidence is that if the consignee denies receiving the goods and can't recall the record of the consignee's signature on the delivery note, then the seller (consignor) and the buyer (consignee) can't be directly linked by the face value of the delivery note itself. If there is other evidence such as invoice deduction, the court will still confirm the validity of the delivery note. Therefore, in the case of entrusting the carrier to deliver the goods, we must keep the delivery express, consignment note and mail receipt, and fill them in the column of commodity name as much as possible.

Third, in the most complicated case, there is no consignee's signature, only the consignee's signature.

The receipt of this delivery note has some defects. During the trial, the consignee can raise the following two defenses: first, the consignee admits that the consignee is the consignee's employee, but denies authorizing the employee to sign;

Second, directly deny the identity of the consignee, not the employee of the consignee, and deny the authorization.

In view of the first defense of the first consignee, that is, denying the authorization of the contracted employees, it can be identified from the following categories.

1. If the consignee holds a special position, such as company manager, purchasing department staff, etc., the identity of the consignee determines that it can sign for the goods without the special authorization of the consignee. The court recognized the validity of the receipt it signed.

2. If the consignee is an ordinary employee of the enterprise, it is not clear whether it is authorized by the consignee to sign for the goods. However, if it can be provided that the employee has signed for the goods in the previous transactions between the two parties, the court will determine the validity of the receipt according to the trading habits of both parties.

3. If the consignee has no special identity relationship and cannot prove that the consignee is authorized according to trading habits or other evidence, the court will think that the consignee is not authorized to sign, thus denying the validity of the receipt.