Reporting on a recent judgement by the US Supreme Court which gives authority to the position that an ocean carrier will be protected by the terms of his own contract irrespective of the terms of a NVOCC B/L Any book or chapter written about the liability of an ocean carrier when a NVOCC* is involved can now be either re-written or clarified following a recent decision rendered by the US Supreme Court in the Kirby-case**. The decision deals with a couple of important issues – including the extent of a Himalaya clause. However, this will not be dealt with in this short article which purports only to deal with a NVOCC carrier’s role in relation to agency and, more specifically, whether a NVOCC carrier will bind cargo interests to ocean carrier’s terms in the bill of lading, or alternatively bind ocean carrier to the terms agreed between the NVOCC and cargo interests – a NVOCC bill of lading. The facts of the case were as follows: An Australian manufacturer sold machinery from Australia to a buyer in the US. The seller arranged for the transportation from Australia to Huntsville, Alabama through a company called International Cargo Control (ICC) who issued a bill of lading for the entire voyage. The trans¬portation consisted of several modes. The ocean voyage ended in Savannah, Georgia and the machinery was then transported inland by railway to the end destination Huntsville. ICC - who issued the bill of lading to the seller - did not use its own vessel for the ocean voyage. In fact they used the service of a German shipping company, Hamburg Süd. Hamburg Süd issued a bill of lading to ICC covering the ocean voyage performed by Hamburg Süd. Both bills of lading contained traditional terms to be found in bills of lading including the carrier’s right to limit liability in accordance with US COGSA to USD 500 per package. The ICC bill of lading did, however, contain a higher limitation amount for the land leg. The machinery was allegedly damaged during inland railway transp