Scruttons+Ltd+v+Midland+Silicones+Ltd

Facts
The facts were that a carrier had entered into a contract ( known as a bill of lading ) with the owner of some drums of chemicals (the plaintiff ) to transport them by ship. The goods were unloaded from the ship by a firm of stevedores (the defendants ) who were engaged for this purpose by the carrier. Both the bill of lading and the contract between the carrier and the stevedores contained a clause limiting liability to $500. The stevedores negligently damaged the goods whilst unloading them and sought to rely upon an exclusion clause contained in the bill of lading as a defence to the plaintiff's action for damages against them in the tort of negligence. Could the stevedores have the benefit of the exclusion clause in the bill of lading ?

Decision
The House of Lords that the defendants (a third party) could not have the benefit of the clause because :


 * there was no privity of contract, and
 * the clause in the bill of lading only referred to the liabilities of the carrier