This case concerned a claim brought by an insurance company, Zurich Insurance PLC (the respondent), against a port company, Terminales Portuarias SL, and a carrier, Eitzen Chemical Spain SA (the appellant) for damage suffered to cargo (sulfuric acid) that the appellant had insured, and that had been contaminated. The court below dismissed the appellant's claim against the port company and partially upheld its claim against the appellant carrier. The appellant carrier appealed to the Provincial Court.

Held: Appeal partially upheld (quantum revised).

The case largely turned on a consideration of the evidence. However, the Provincial Court also had to consider the need for a timely protest or reservation by the receiver of the cargo, imposed by art 952.2.2 of the Commercial Code. The Court held that this does not relate only to the possibility of proof of damages or failures, unlike art 3.6 of the modified International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading of 25 August 1924 (the Hague-Visby Rules), which relate to the omission of a timely protest a presumption iuris tantum that the goods were received from the carrier in the form consigned in the bill of lading, with the scope, therefore, of an inversion of the burden of proof.

The Court held that the period for protest must be calculated from the moment when the transported goods were effectively delivered to the receiver, Turol Trading SA. The question was when effective delivery would take place when the cargo consisted of sulfuric acid and delivery was not made directly by the carrier but through its transfer from the ship's warehouses to the port and from the port to the trucks that had to transport it to its destination in the facilities of Turol Trading SA.

In the circumstances, the court did not consider that the appellant's claim was prejudiced by the absence of a claim or protest of damages at the time of delivery or within the following 24 hours.