Banco de Seguros del Estado, acting under an assignment of rights, claimed against Marítima del Plata SA and Nobleza Armadora SA (the defendants) for short shipment of cargoes of fertilisers in three consignments.

The first instance Court admitted the claim and ordered the defendants to pay compensation. The defendants appealed, alleging that their obligation was to make the ship's holds available and perform the transport, and that they were not under an obligation of result. They argued that they had carried the cargo without knowing its volume, and could not control its weight or quality. There was a discrepancy in the cargo right from the beginning, manifested by a clause in the bill of lading indicating that 'the weight, measurements, quality, quantity, condition, content and value are unknown'. They also contended that the lower Court's interpretation of the exoneration of liability clause contained in the bill of lading was incomplete.

Held: The Court of Appeal (CA) affirmed the decision. The CA concluded that the lower Court assessed the evidence correctly. The carrier's duties are not limited to the duration of the voyage while the cargo is being transported. The carrier's duty begins when the carrier accepts and receives the shipment and concludes with its delivery to the consignee at the destination. Before the actual delivery of the goods, the carrier remains charged under an obligation of result, and can only be released from liability by proving one of the exculpatory causes listed in the applicable law. As it is an obligation of result, the debtor can only avoid liability by demonstrating the occurrence of a non-imputable external cause, and its conduct is irrelevant.

The bill of lading is essential for the decision in this case, which, having been drafted in conformity with the relevant legal rules, constitutes full evidence that the carrier received the cargo described therein. Article 3.4 of the Hague Rules 1924 states this principle: 'Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described'. The Visby Protocol 1968 also adds that: 'However, proof to the contrary shall not be admissible when the bill of lading has been transferred to a third party acting in good faith.' From this rule, it is understood that proof to the contrary is admissible in a claim filed by the shipper, but not in respect of a claim by a third party acting in good faith. Therefore, defences based on an exonerative cause, and the argument that the carrier could not control the weight of the cargo, cannot be admitted. A party who has issued a 'clean' bill of lading cannot later pretend that it did not load what it said it loaded. Given the nature of the contract of carriage and the obligations resulting from it, it should be in the interest of the carrier to fully understand the characteristics of the merchandise to be transported. An omission to do so cannot exonerate the carrier from liability. The provisions of the Code of Commerce oblige carriers to control the cargo when they receive it at the port of origin, and, if they do not do so, such an omission is at their own risk. Those controls are perfectly possible and appropriate under maritime commercial practices.

Regarding the exoneration clause stating that the carrier is unaware of the content of the cargo, it is null and void for it is a unilateral imposition, as it leaves the performance of the agreement to only one of the contracting parties. Such clauses lack validity and are considered void, because they denature the contract of carriage, and because there is no consent or knowledge by the other party of the carrier's affixing of a printed stamp. If the carrier does not know what it is loading, it cannot know what must be delivered. In other words, it would be an exonerative cause created unilaterally in detriment of explicit legal provisions establishing a great number of obligations for the master regarding the cargo at the port of origin that cannot be ignored, because that would mean a total exemption of liability.

The CA agreed with the lower Court that the defendants made no effort to prove disagreements in the differences in cargo verified by the evidence provided by the plaintiff. In addition, the defendants did not prove the existence of external factors, thereby failing to avoid the burden of proof that they had to discharge.