Some sort of device was found by the House of Lords in Elder, Dempster & Co. Ltd v. Paterson, Zochonis & Co. Ltd.3 Thus, shipowners were able to rely on a limitation clause in the contract between the shippers and the cargo owners. Unfortunately, the exact reason for this reliance has remained obscure. The case was not followed by the House of Lords in Scruttons Ltd v. Midland Silicones Ltd.4 This latter decision represents the high water mark for the sanctity of privity of contract; courts have since developed other devices to circumvent privity problems. The Mahkutai 5 is concerned with, and surprisingly limits, two such devices: Himalaya clauses and bailment on terms. Himalaya clauses are based on the principle enunciated in The Eurymedon 6 and reinforced in The New York Star.7 Accordingly, where the requisite conditions are fulfilled,8 one of the contracting parties acts as agent for the third party in forming another contract. The third party then has his own contract with the same, or some of the same, terms. In contrast, bailment on terms,