P contracted X to convey packages to the destination. D, stevedores contracted by X to unload the ship, negligently allowed the packages to be stolen in the course of the unloading. There was a clause in the contract that conferred the same protection that X had (claims to be brought within 1 year) on D and Privy Council held that this “Himalaya” clause was effective despite D not being a party to the original contract.
Lord Wilberforce: in the normal course of things stevedores can rely on these clauses for ease of business + precedent of The Eurymadon (above). This can apply in tort as well as contract provided the exemption clauses relate to both contractual and tortious liability. Had to be interpreted in the light of industry practice- What about where a party is unaware of industry practice/chooses not to use it?
