In December 1984, the Ugland Obo Six arrived in Venice, Italy, with a cargo of crude oil for Agip SpA (Agip). Agip verified a shortage in the cargo and sued Agenzia Marittima Carlo Tanolo, as the ship's agent, Uglands Reederei A/S, Garm Shipping Ltd, Ugland Brothers Ltd, and Philippine Transmarine Carriers Ltd (PTC) in the Tribunal of Venice. PTC argued that, even if it was the shipowner, it did not perform the transport, producing the contract of carriage between Agip and Frisia Handels und Transport GmbH from Enden, Germany.

In December 1988, the Tribunal of Venice upheld the claim, considering that the bill of lading was signed by the master of the ship, making the shipowner the carrier. Moreover, the Tribunal contested the legitimacy of PTC to invoke a contract of carriage to which it was not a party.

PTC appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeal of Venice confirmed it, emphasising that the fact that Agip was party to another contract of carriage could not limit its rights towards the issuer of the bill of lading. PTC appealed in cassation, arguing that there was no autonomy between the contract of carriage and the bill of lading as they represented subsequent phases of the same relationship. Moreover, PTC stressed that the bill of lading was only the receipt of the goods loaded onto the ship, and that there was a time charterparty agreement determining the differentiation between the shipowner and the carrier. The master of the vessel also acted on the instructions of the charterer. Finally, the relationship of carriage was governed only by the contract and not by the bill of lading.

Held: The appeal in cassation is dismissed.

The Court recalled the Italian Code of Navigation, which provides for the carrier's obligation to issue a bill of lading to the shipper after loading, including the carrier's and the shipper's identities, as well as the nature, quality, and quantity of the goods. If the master signs the bill of lading, the carrier is the shipowner.

Moreover, the Court highlighted the functions of the bill of lading, noting that the document holder is the holder of the goods indicated therein. The bill of lading symbolises the goods and evidences their loading onto the ship. The bill of lading is also a document of title. The letter of the document is the fundamental element in determining the holder’s rights. The bill of lading is also characterised by autonomy, meaning that the holder’s right indicated in the document is autonomous from that of the previous holders.

The Court also recalled that Agip was entitled to the action under the contract and the action against the carrier under the bill of lading.

In conclusion, the Court noted that the fact that the master acted on the charterer’s instructions was irrelevant.