Opinion ID: 216562
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attic & Patt

Text: While QT's claims against Saga require more extensive discussion, its claims against Attic and Patt are easily dismissed. The district court correctly found that QT failed to present any evidence that either Defendant was a party to the Bills of Lading or otherwise authorized Daewoo to sign on its behalf. In order to assert a direct claim against Attic or Patt, QT would have to establish privity of contract, see Thyssen, 50 F.3d at 1353, something it does not attempt and cannot establish here. Further, while a shipper can establish an indirect claim based on establishing the authority of (1) the charterer to sign on behalf of the Master and (2) the Master's authority to bind the owner, QT has made no such claim against Attic or Patt here. All references to the Master and the owner here relate to Daewoo's Charter Party with Saga; QT has presented no evidence that the Master was an agent of Attic or Patt or that either gave the Master any authority to bind it.