<P> Lord Wilberforce stated: </P> <Table> <Tr> <Td> "</Td> <Td> the Bill of Lading brought into existence a bargain initially unilateral but capable of becoming mutual, between the shippers and the appellants (NZ Shipping Co Ltd), made through the carrier as agent . This became a full contract when the appellant performed services by discharging the goods . The performance of these services for the benefit of the shipper was the consideration for the agreement by the shipper that the appellant should have the benefit of the exemptions and limitations contained in the Bill of Lading . </Td> <Td>" </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> "</Td> <Td> the Bill of Lading brought into existence a bargain initially unilateral but capable of becoming mutual, between the shippers and the appellants (NZ Shipping Co Ltd), made through the carrier as agent . This became a full contract when the appellant performed services by discharging the goods . The performance of these services for the benefit of the shipper was the consideration for the agreement by the shipper that the appellant should have the benefit of the exemptions and limitations contained in the Bill of Lading . </Td> <Td>" </Td> </Tr> <P> He went on to say: </P>

New zealand shipping co ltd v am satterthwaite &co ltd (the eurymedon) 1975 ac 155