Misdelivery: A mere receipt or a contract of carriage? Misdelivery without a bill of lading carries legal risk, but liability depends on contract context. In The Sienna, the bill became contractual post-novation, yet no loss was found. Articles Despoina Kafka Published: May 13, 2025 Contact author Download article pdf Agreeing to deliver of cargo without surrender of a bill of lading against a Letter of Indemnity (“LOI”) is a not an uncommon practice but brings with it: The risk of claims for misdelivery, which are likely to be for very significant sums; and If so, the uncertainty of enforcing rights under the LOI [ www.steamshipmutual.com/publications/articles/delivery-of-cargo-without-production-of-bills-of-lading-a-recap112019 ]; and There in is no Club cover for any resultant liability “ Unless and to the extent that the Directors shall in their absolute discretion otherwise determine ”.    It is not necessarily the case that a carrier facing a claim for misdelivery will be liable to pay that claim. In the Alhani [2018] the 12-month time bar in Article III rule 6 of the Hague Visby Rules was held to apply to misdelivery claims where the misdelivery was simultaneous with discharge, and in the recent Supreme Court decision in FIMBank p.l.c. v KCH Shipping Co. Ltd (The Giant Ace) the same 12-month time bar also applied to a post-discharge misdelivery claim. While there is always considerable risk involved if Members agree to deliver cargo without production of an original bill of lading there are, however, other circumstances in which claims for misdelivery  might be rejected. This will depend on the facts of any particular claim, but one example is the 2023 case of Unicredit Bank A.G. v Euronav N.V .  ( The Sienna ) in which the Court of Appeal had to consider the following issues: Whether a bill of lading in the hands of voyage charterers is a ‘’mere receipt’’ after the charter had been novated and therefore, Whether discharge of the cargo wit