The appellant, Dimond Rigging Co LLC (Dimond), hired the respondents, BDP International Inc (BDP) and Logitrans International Inc (Logitrans), to ship several tons of used manufacturing equipment consisting of 132 individual pieces from the United States to China. The respondents hired the Gisele Scan, operated by Scan-Trans Inc (Scan-Trans) to transport the equipment. BDP prepared the bill of lading, which identified Dimond as the 'merchant', Logitrans as the 'carrier', Scan-Trans as the 'agent-shipbroker', and BDP as the 'merchant's representative'. The shipment was delayed and the appellant incurred increased expense. The appellant alleged that the delays and expenses were due to BDP's failure to disclose that the respondents were not properly licensed ocean transportation intermediaries or non-vessel operating common carriers.

The respondents filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the bill of lading was governed by COGSA/the Hague Rules and that the appellant's claims were barred by the statute of limitations under COGSA/the Hague Rules. The District Court granted the motions on the ground that the dispute between the appellant and the respondents was governed by the bill of lading, which fell under COGSA/the Hague Rules' one-year statute of limitations (see CMI230). The appellant appealed.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the dispute was not a maritime dispute, but instead was about 'breaches of contractual agreements, breaches of fiduciary duties, and outright fraud', which did not create maritime jurisdiction. In addition, the appellant maintained that the respondents were not 'carriers' within the meaning of COGSA/the Hague Rules and therefore could not invoke the one-year statute of limitations. Although the bill of lading listed Logitrans as 'carrier', COGSA/the Hague Rules did not apply because the respondents were not agents of the vessel or the carrier. Furthermore, the respondents were estopped from enjoying the one-year statute of limitations because they were not in compliance with various maritime licensing statutes and regulations.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

In determining whether a dispute is a maritime dispute, the answer depends upon the nature and character of the contract. The true criterion is whether the dispute has reference to maritime services or maritime transactions. This case arose from a contract to transport used manufacturing equipment by sea from the United States to China. It was plainly a maritime transaction. COGSA/the Hague Rules applied.

A carrier under COGSA/the Hague Rules means 'the owner, manager, charterer, agent, or master of a vessel'. COGSA/the Hague Rules provides that carriers are subject to certain statutory responsibilities and liabilities, and in turn, are provided with certain rights and immunities, such as a one-year statute of limitations in art 3.6 of COGSA/the Hague Rules. In determining whether a party is a carrier, the key inquiry is the function of the party, rather than the form. If a party issues a bill of lading, it is usually a 'carrier' under COGSA/the Hague Rules. In this case, the respondents entered into a contract of carriage with the appellant and took on the responsibility of transporting the cargo by sea. In addition, the respondents issued the bill of lading. Therefore, the respondents were carriers within the meaning of COGSA/the Hague Rules.

There was no basis to apply equitable estoppel because COGSA/the Hague Rules did not include licensure provisions. COGSA/the Hague Rules did not supersede rights and obligations set forth in other federal statutes. When a carrier violates a statute, the statute may penalise the carrier's practice, but it will not make the contract of carriage unenforceable. Therefore, the one-year statute of limitations under COGSA/the Hague Rules barred the appellant's claim.