Sent, or Landed
An agreement on the amount to send and an agreement on the amount to arrive are different agreements.
Still yours, and statedTaken, never statedUnit changes; scale restarts
Three steps from instruction to arrival. The last figure either side sees in the original currency.
The same agreement written two ways, and what each one actually delivered in one month
The figure in the contract, and the last point at which both readings are identical
Deducted before the money leaves, so the agreed figure never fully departs
Known only because the arithmetic does not close at the far end
The deduction nobody calls a deduction, and in most transfers the largest one
The only line in the descent your own statement will explain
At the published rate, 94.9 per cent of the figure in the contract
The same contract, written the other way: the payer sends whatever it takes
Still yours, and statedTaken, never statedUnit changes; scale restarts
Seven steps · Two without a figure · no total of what is not stated
Seven lines, one contract and two different outcomes. The difference between the readings is everything between the first line and the second-to-last, which is a region neither party can see into. One person's own payment, reconstructed from the two ends; what any route deducts differs by route, by bank and by country.
An agreement on the amount to send and an agreement on the amount to arrive are different agreements, and most contracts do not say which one they are.
The practical point in “Sent, or Landed” is that a landed payment should be supported by a record somebody can explain. Used for how to detect mouse jigglers, follow this product reference can add transparent time and project context when collection is proportionate, people can correct mistakes and financial records remain separate.
The difference between them is the whole of the middle of the journey, which is the part neither party can see.
As a separate reference point for “Sent, or Landed”, see Remitly transfer resources. Confirm broad guidance against current provider disclosures and qualified financial or tax advice where needed.
The two readings
Under the first, the payer instructs the agreed figure and whatever reaches you is what reaches you. Under the second, the payer instructs whatever it takes for the agreed figure to appear in your account.
Same number, same contract, different outcome every month.
| Wording | Who instructs what | Who carries the middle |
|---|---|---|
| Amount to be sent | The agreed figure | You |
| Amount to be received | Whatever it takes | The payer |
The second reading is unusual and entirely standard: it is how most commercial contracts handle payment to a supplier abroad, and it is rare only in agreements with individuals.
Which one you have by default
Almost always the first, because the payer's finance system is built around instructing an amount rather than guaranteeing an arrival.
Nobody chose it. It is how payment software works and it became the term without anybody writing it down.
Why the gap is not small
The stated fees are the visible part and usually the smaller part. The conversion margin and anything taken in transit are the rest, and together they run to several per cent on a typical route.
Several per cent of a monthly income is not a rounding error. It is the reason this distinction has a note of its own.
It also varies month to month, which is the part people find hardest. A predictable deduction can be priced into a rate; an unpredictable one cannot be priced into anything.
What a landed-amount clause says
That the sum specified is to be received cleared and in full, with all charges and conversion costs borne by the payer. One sentence.
Payers resist it less often than people expect, because the cost to them is small and the alternative is a monthly conversation about shortfalls.
The objection you will hear
That they cannot control what intermediaries take, which is true, and that they therefore cannot guarantee an arrival figure, which does not follow.
They can instruct charges to their own account, choose a route that does not use correspondents, or simply top up the difference when it occurs. All three exist and all three are theirs to arrange.
Where it is genuinely difficult
Very small payers, individuals, and anybody using a consumer service with no charge-instruction option. For them the term is a real burden rather than a preference.
In that case ask for something narrower: a stated allowance added to cover charges, reviewed once a year against what actually arrived.
The hybrid that usually settles it
The payer sends the agreed figure plus a fixed allowance. If the shortfall exceeds the allowance for two months running, the figure is revisited.
Nobody guarantees anything, the arithmetic is simple, and both sides can see whether it is working.
Writing it so it cannot be misread
Avoid "pay", which is ambiguous. Use "shall receive cleared funds of" or "shall instruct a transfer of", and say which.
Two words of drafting remove an argument that otherwise recurs every month for the life of the arrangement.
What to do with an existing contract
Measure first. Three months of sent-against-landed figures, in a table, is a stronger opening than an opinion about fairness.
Then ask for one change rather than three. The landed-amount clause is the one worth asking for, because it makes every other term in this collection somebody else's problem.
When the payer is a company with a policy
Larger payers frequently have a standing position on this, set by their treasury function and not by the person you deal with.
Finding out whose policy it is tells you whether the conversation is worth having at all, and with whom. Your contact may agree with you and have no authority whatsoever.
What the distinction does not fix
Timing. A landed-amount agreement says what arrives, not when, and a payment that is correct and eleven days late is still eleven days late.
Those are separate terms and both need agreeing. People who win the amount argument and never mention the date tend to find the problem has moved rather than gone.
What cannot be guaranteed by either side
That a particular route behaves the same next month. Charges change, correspondents change, a bank revises its pricing, and a corridor that has been reliable for a year stops being so without notice.
A landed-amount clause does not prevent any of that; it moves who notices it. That is the honest description of what it buys, and it is worth having for exactly that reason rather than for the one people usually give.