Plaintiff next freight forwarder accepted the entrusting of Defendant previous freight forwarder and booked the space with the shipping company MOL. The bill of lading recorded the shipper as Plaintiff, the consignee and the notifying party was Plaintiff’s agent USI at the port of destination. After the goods arrived at the port of destination, the consignee did not take the goods, Plaintiff immediately informed Defendant, asking it to contact the consignee to take the goods or tell it how to deal with the goods, but Defendant did not take any measures, resulting in containers were piled up at the port of destination resulting in huge storage fees. After the goods involved were auctioned, there was still USD94,500 to be paid after deducting related expenses. The shipping company MOL sued USI in the United States for USD94,500 in stowage fee. USI sued Plaintiff in a cross-action and held Plaintiff liable for damages. Plaintiff then concluded a settlement agreement with USI and MOL America, under which Plaintiff and USI paid MOL America USD70,000 to ultimately resolve the dispute. USI subsequently transferred its full rights to the USD35,000 it paid to Plaintiff. Plaintiff held that Defendant, as the client of the goods involved, should bear the full liability for Plaintiff’s loss, so it filed an action before the court. The court held that (1) Plaintiff only had the right to sue for USD35,000 paid to MOL, because the letter of transfer of rights and interests provided by Plaintiff came from USI and was an overseas evidence, which was not notarized and certified, and the court did not confirm the validity of the evidence, and Plaintiff did not pay fee to USI. (2) Defendant should not be liable for any damages. Because Defendant was not the shipper recorded in the bill of lading, and according to the valid evidence on record, Defendant was only the freight agent of the delivery shipper, not a party in the contract of carriage of goods by sea, Defendant did not have to bear the liability for the loss caused to the carrier by the costs incurred by the goods at the port of destination; in addition, because Plaintiff did not provide effective evidence to prove the nature of the claim cost and the reasonability of the cost (including the calculation standard of the cost, the start and end time, the corresponding details), Plaintiff could not recover from Defendant the money paid to MOL through the settlement.