This was an appeal from the judgment of the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance (21 December 2015, 2014/1204-2015/496).

The plaintiff sold hazelnuts and hazelnut flour to two customers for delivery to Hong Kong and Shanghai, contracting with the defendant carrier for transportation. However, due to the defendant's lack of proper care and attention during loading, the goods intended for Hong Kong were delivered to Shanghai, and vice versa. As a result of the defendant not fulfilling their contractual duties properly, the plaintiff claimed that it suffered material and moral damages. It sought compensation of 30,000 TRY for material damages and 5,000 TRY for moral damages, plus interest.

The defendant argued that the case involved container transportation, and that the counting, weighing, stacking, and securing of goods inside the container were not the carrier's responsibility. The defendant stated that its only obligation was to transport the containers, which were delivered to it sealed and locked. It was unaware of the contents inside the containers. As a consequence, the defendant requested the dismissal of the case.

The Court of First Instance noted that the plaintiff had contracted with the defendant for the transportation of two separate cargoes for two customers intended for export, and that each bill of lading differed in destination, recipient, and type of goods, although the number of goods, container type, ship used for transport, and the route were the same for both shipments. The declarations and invoices were consistent with the records in the bills of lading, and the bills of lading were correctly issued for the related containers. Despite the paperwork being in order, the goods inside the containers were loaded incorrectly.

The Court found that there was no confusion of container types and markings by the carrier. The correct containers reached the correct addresses, but incurred damages due to their incorrect contents. Each bill of lading included the note 'shipper loads, counts, and seals', indicating that it was not the carrier's responsibility to verify the contents as the containers were leased and not stuffed by the carrier. Moreover, references in the correspondence between the parties and a commercially reasonable interpretation of the FCL/FCL (Full Container Load/Full Container Load) notation supported the presumption that the stuffing of the containers was completed by the shipper. The Court concluded that the plaintiff could not provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the wrongful delivery of goods to incorrect locations was due to the incorrect stuffing of the containers, and the carrier could not be held liable for the damages incurred by the plaintiff. As a consequence, the lawsuit was dismissed.

The decision was appealed by the plaintiff.

Held: Appealed dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found no procedural or legal errors in assessing the evidence by the lower Court, and dismissed all of the plaintiff's appeal objections.