Plaintiff Shengchuan claimed they entrusted Defendant Aiyite to ship three consignments of goods on their behalf and they had an agreement that some of the goods should not be delivered as they had not received payment for the goods in question, but nevertheless the goods were delivered. Plaintiff Shengchaun wanted to get compensated from Defendant Aiyite for the sum lost. The Court of first instance rejected Plaintiff Shengchuan’s claim that a valid contractual relationship of carriage of goods by sea was established between Plaintiff Shengchuan and Defendant Aiyite in respect of the two consignments of goods under LCL, because there was not sufficient evidence to support this claim. The Court further held that Defendant Aiyite agreed to carry the goods based on its relationship with a non-party (Yongheng) and the direct release of the goods conformed with the agreement between Defendant Aiyite and Yongheng on how the goods ought to be released therefore, Aiyite was not at fault in the way that it handled the first and second consignments. However, in respect of the third consignment, the Court of first instance held that a contractual relationship did exist between Plaintiff and Defendant and that Defendant Aiyite had violated the terms of the contract in the manner of delivery as it did not comply with the instructions of Shengchuan.