A cargo of oil had been carried under bills of lading incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules. There was an alleged theft of part of the cargo, and the question was whether article III rule 6 of the rules barred the claim on the ground that it had not been brought within one year.
Held: The court could not finally determine the issue because it was not clear whether the claimants were parties to the bills. The Act and the rules make clear that the bill of lading is the bedrock of the mandatory code. A bill of lading is a contractual document with well-known consequences when endorsed and transferred. The code would not treat the existence of a bill of lading with overriding importance if the code applied with equal force as between those who are not parties to the contract which the bill contains or evidences.
Otherwise: Compania Portorafti Commerciale SA v Ultramara Panama Inc (The Captain Gregos)
 1 Lloyds Rep 310,  3 All ER 967
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 1(4), Hague-Visby Rules I(b) X
England and Wales
Cited – J I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
Cited – Frans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd ComC 30-Jun-2004
A large volume of mobile phones were stolen from a warehouse. The owner claimed damages from the bailee. The defendant said that standard terms applied limiting their responsibility to value calculated by weight.
Held: There was a bailment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.181892