The main issue in this case was whether DSV Samson Transport A/S (DSV), and possibly also Royal Cargo Corp (Royal), and Yangming Marine Transport Corp (Yangming) were responsible to Gidana A/S (Gidana) for losses from a short shipment from First Magmedia Corp (Magmedia) in Cavite, Philippines. Gidana claimed DKK 659,941.48 plus interest from Gidana. In relation to Royal and Yangming, DSV claimed that they must indemnify DSV for any amount that DSV might be required to pay to Gidana.

Gidana purchased DKK 1.8 million worth of 3.5'' MF2HD computer disks at a price of USD 118,800 from Magmedia on FOB Manila terms, payment by irrevocable sight letter of credit. Aarhus was specified as the destination. At Gidana's request, a letter of credit was issued by Unibank on 3 August 1999 in favour of Magmedia. A bill of lading was issued in Manila on 16 August 1999 by Royal, which signed 'As Carrier'. The shipper was Magmedia, and the 'Notify Address' was Gidana, Langballe 2, Horsens. The container was described as: '1 x 40' CONTAINER SAID TO CONTAIN: SHIPPER'S LOAD COUNT AND SEALED' under which the item type and quantity were stated. The gross weight was stated to be 36,720 kg, and the volume was stated to be 53.82 m³. The bill of lading also noted FCL/FCL (Full Container Load). According to the endorsement on the bill of lading, the container was taken on board on 16 August 1999. There was also a combined transport bill of lading, issued on 16 August 1999, concerning the transport of the container from Manila to Singapore by Pacific Eagle Lines Pte Ltd. Yangming also presented a bill of lading issued by the company's agent in Manila on 16 August 1999 concerning the transport of the container from Manila-Hamburg-Århus.

On 10 and 15 September 1999, telephone conversations took place between Gidana and DSV regarding problems with the transport of the container from Hamburg to Århus, which was made difficult by the weight of the container. It was not possible to transport the container by road or rail. Gidana and DSV agreed to open the container in Hamburg and split the transport into two. The goods arrived at Gidana on 22 September 1999, not as expected in two lorries, but in one, and containing only 431,900 disks with a total weight of 9,360 kg. It is agreed that the shortage amounted to 1,368,100 diskettes.

Gidana argued that DSV was responsible as a carrier in accordance with NSAB 2000 terms. Royal was negligent in carrying out the assignment, and had not shown sufficient care. The overweight of the container was significant, and was important for the implementation of the transport. It was at least foreseeable that problems would arise in connection with the later transport over land. The international rules on maximum total weight for road transport, which have universal validity, would inevitably mean that the container could not be transported by road. The reservations made in the bill of lading were general and irrelevant. The 'Said to Contain' proviso did not constitute a release from liability. A specific reservation should have been made: see s 298 of the Maritime Act, which corresponds to art 3.3 of the Hague-Visby Rules.

DSV denied having responsibility as a carrier, except for transport from Hamburg to Aarhus. DSV was only a transport intermediary. If DSV was considered a carrier with a carrier's liability, its liability should be assessed in accordance with the rules of the Merchant Shipping Act. With regard to this liability, DSV asserted the same pleas as those addressed. It was argued that if an error was committed with regard to the execution of the transport, it was committed in the Far East, and the responsibility for this must be borne by the consignee, Gidana. If there was both advisory and transport responsibility, there should be a division between DSV, Royal and Yangming. There was also fault on Gidana's part. Gidana was an experienced importer. Gidana was aware that DSV could not undertake to control the shipment. The transport was FCL/FCL, and therefore Gidana had to be aware that it was not possible to obtain security through the bill of lading. because the contents of the container were assumed.

Royal argued that DSV could not rely on NSAB terms in relation to beneficiaries. A justification for a possible liability must be sought in the bill of lading: see ss 296 and 298 of the Maritime Act, which correspond to arts 3.3 and 3.4 of the Hague-Visby Rules. The information in the bill of lading regarding content, weight, and volume came from the shipper who packed and sealed the container. Royal was therefore not be responsible for the content. This also appeared from the reservations in the bill of lading: FCL/FCL and SAID TO CONTAIN: SHIPPER'S LOAD COUNT AND SEALED. Yangming was the contractual carrier for the transport and should, if necessary, bear final responsibility: see s 286(1) of the Maritime Act. Yangming should therefore indemnify Royal for any amount that it might be ordered to pay to DSV.

Yangming agreed with DSV's and Royal's allegations against Gidana. Yangming performed the required transport task from Manila-Hamburg responsibly. The alleged overweight was completely unimportant for maritime transport. The error was not due to DSV, Royal, or Yangming. The fault lay with Gidana.

Held: Judgment for the carriers.

At Gidana's request, DSV undertook to be responsible for the transport of DKK 1.8 million floppy disks from Manila to Aarhus. The agreement entered into must be understood as an agreement in terms of which DSV assumed general responsibility for the implementation of the transport and thus a carrier's responsibility. DSV was therefore responsible for Royal's actions and omissions.

A carrier of a closed container is not obliged to carry out a checkweighing of the container. In this respect, the carrier must rely on the information provided by the person who packed and closed or sealed the container.

Jens Feilberg and Helle Lehmann note: The carrier agreed to include the container with the significant overweight it had, and it has not been proven that it was unjustifiable to carry out the sea voyage with the allegedly overweight container. It would have been natural for Royal to have reacted to the stated overweight, but it is uncertain whether a reaction would lead to the correct weight ratio being established before the container was taken on board and a bill of lading was issued. An inquiry directed to the shipper or consignee could lead to a confirmation that the weight was as stated, approximately 36 mt, and it is uncertain whether an inquiry to DSV would have led to a checkweighing or reloading of the container.

Benny Jepsen notes: According to NSAB § 5, the freight forwarder who has the carrier's responsibility must prove that it has taken care of the client's interests with care within the framework of the order. From the transport documents, it became clear with considerable clarity that the container was significantly overweight. The information about the weight of the container is important in several respects. The weight is important in terms of safety, amongst other things, for the ship's loading plan, and for the timely and safe completion of the entire transport, including in particular the part that took place on land. Royal should therefore have responded to the information on the weight of the container, either by notifying the contracting authority or by carrying out a checkweighing. Royal did nothing, and must therefore bear the risk that no measures were taken that could have clarified that the container was not overweight, but on the contrary underweight, and that there was therefore a significant shortage, which was the cause of the loss suffered. I therefore vote in favour of ordering DSV to compensate Gidana for the loss suffered, and in order to order Royal to indemnify DSV. Yangming undertook the more limited task of transporting the container from Manila to Hamburg, and was thus not responsible for the overall process. There is no information showing that it was not justifiable for the purpose of carrying out this part of the transport that the shipping company accepted the receipt of containers of the specified weight, or that there were other special reasons why the shipping company carried out an investigation to check the transport documents' indication of the weight of the container. I find for this reason that Yangming is not liable.

The decision is reached by a majority of votes.