Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 677.301 (2025)
Liability for nonreceipt or misdescription; “said to contain”; “shipper’s weight, load, and count”; improper handling.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
677.301 Liability for nonreceipt or misdescription; “said to contain”; “shipper’s weight, load, and count”; improper handling.—
(1) A consignee of a nonnegotiable bill of lading which has given value in good faith, or a holder to which a negotiable bill has been duly negotiated, relying upon the description of the goods in the bill or upon the date shown in the bill, may recover from the issuer damages caused by the misdating of the bill or the nonreceipt or misdescription of the goods, except to the extent that the bill indicates that the issuer does not know whether any part or all of the goods in fact were received or conform to the description, such as in the case in which the description is in terms of marks or labels or kind, quantity, or condition or the receipt or description is qualified by “contents or condition of contents of packages unknown,” “said to contain,” “shipper’s weight, load, and count” or words of similar import, if that indication is true.
(2) If goods are loaded by the issuer of a bill of lading:
(a) The issuer shall count the packages of goods if shipped in packages and ascertain the kind and quantity if shipped in bulk; and
(b) Words such as “shipper’s weight, load, and count” or words of similar import indicating that the description was made by the shipper are ineffective except as to goods concealed in packages.
(3) If bulk goods are loaded by a shipper that makes available to the issuer of a bill of lading adequate facilities for weighing those goods, the issuer shall ascertain the kind and quantity within a reasonable time after receiving the shipper’s request to do so. In that case “shipper’s weight, load, and count” or words of similar import are ineffective.
(4) The issuer of a bill of lading, by including in the bill the words “shipper’s weight, load, and count” or words of similar import, may indicate that the goods were loaded by the shipper, and if that statement is true, the issuer is not liable for damages caused by the improper loading. However, omission of such words does not imply liability for damages caused by improper loading.
(5) A shipper guarantees to an issuer the accuracy at the time of shipment of the description, marks, labels, number, kind, quantity, condition and weight, as furnished by the shipper, and the shipper shall indemnify the issuer against damage caused by inaccuracies in those particulars. This right of indemnity does not limit the issuer’s responsibility or liability under the contract of carriage to any person other than the shipper.
Note.—s. 7-301, U.C.C.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Ladex Corp. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales, 476 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Ladex Corp. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales, 476 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). “NOTES [1] Of course, if Ladex, as a consignee of a nonnegotiable air waybill, has not "given value," such may be a valid defense to an action brought pursuant to section 677.”
Certain Underwriters At Lloyds of London v. Scents Corporations (S.D. Fla. 2024). “” Fla. Stat. § 677.301 (5). “This right of indemnity does not limit the issuer’s responsibility or liability under the contract of carriage to any person other than the shipper.”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Scents Corp. (11th Cir. 2025). “See Fla. Stat. §§ 677.301 (5); 677.507(3). But neither is persuasive in this context.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.