Exclusion clause from all liability, not just for carrier but all agents
and contractors, including stevedores.
Differently phrased clause to Scruttons.
Privy Council therefore held stevedores could rely on it.
Reasoned that owners of goods made offer of unilateral contract to stevedores
via carriers as agents – ‘If you unload the goods we will exclude your
liability in unloading’.
So there is a contractual
relationship and hence no privity problem.
[Although just result, reasoning artificial:
1. By saying that unloading of the
goods = consideration.
2. Carriers as agents?
However, case confirmed by Privy Council in The NY Star 
So exception to privity doctrine here.
However, technicalities have
meant courts cannot transfer Eurymedon reasoning
to analogous situations, eg building / construction world.
1999 Act solves these problems]