Even the applicability of privity of contract to the maritime contracts was established only after the court rulings in Tweddle & Atkinson 1 and Thompson v Dominy 2. Section 1 of the Bill of Lading Act was enacted to provide the right of suit to the consignee as well as the transferee of the Bill of Lading thus providing an exception to the privity of contract. However one major flaw was that the right of suit was made available only in respect of the conditions specifically and expressly mentioned in the Bill of lading. since the essence of Section 1 is to transfer the right of suit 'as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself' . Thus made the section inoperative in those cases where the right of suit on reasons otherwise than on consignment or endorsement and this wording was adversely affecting the position of the Banks in whose favour the bills of lading were endorsed not giving them the right to sue.
Under the circumstances where the Bills of lading were not able to be received by the consignees within such time the vessel reaches the destination, the buyer became the owner of the goods by producing a 'letter if indemnity'. As was decided in the case of The Delfini  this act of becoming owner by delivery and 'not upon reason of consignment or endorsement' excluded the receiver's right to sue.
The rulings in cases like The Aliakmon ; where an endorsement was made in the Bill of Lading for the agent to take delivery on behalf of the consignee held that there was no transfer of property and in the case of The Aramis ; since it was not possible to ascertain the specific goods consigned from a larger bulk, held that the property did not pass as laid down in Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, have subsided the effect of the Delfini case.
Cessation of Liability of the Ship owner:
The decision in the case of Grant v Norway 4 provided for the cessation of liability of the ship owner to the endorsee or transferee of the Bill of lading in cases where the ship owner can prove that the goods were not actually shipped., section 3 of the Bill of Lading Act 1855 was enacted to provide that statements made in the bills of lading with regards to the goods shipped would be conclusive evidence of such shipment "as against the Master or other persons signing the same". However this provision did not provide the necessary remedy for the problem as the ship owners were inclined to take advantage of the courts reading the provisions of Section 3 literally, by applying the principle of estoppel in their favour. Hence section 3 of the Bill of Lading Act proved ineffective in solving the issues created by the case of Grant v Norway 5.
Coverage of the Bill of Lading Act 1855:
One final issue concerning the Bill of Lading Act was that it generally covered only 'Bills of Lading' and not 'sea way bills' which were the order of the day during the last few decades with the containerization of the goods which was not covered by the old Act.
Provisions of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992:
Section 2 (1) (a) of the UK Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992, empowers the consignee to sue the carrier in contract, where the consignee is the