the alternative, proceed in personam against any person who may be liable.”). Thus, the court was correct in determining that Hawkspere was entitled to pursue the Shippers in personam for payment of freight. IX. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED 1 . It is important to emphasize that the cargo's shipment involved two distinct contracts: (1) the charterparty, between Hawkspere, as ship-owner, and ICTS, as charterer; and (2) the bills of lading, between Hawkspere, as ocean carrier, and Intamex and Amaleo, as shippers. Because this is a dispute between carrier (Hawkspere) and shippers (Intamex and Amaleo), the bills of lading will be our primary focus. See Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. v. M/V BERANE, 182 F.Supp.2d 503, 504-06 (D.Md.2002) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Bills of lading are typically signed by
holding that shipper negligence does not absolve a carrier of liability if damage would not have occurred but for the concurrent fault of the carrier holding that bill of lading not charterparty governed contract dispute between carrier and shipper holding that bill of lading issued as to two containers was binding as to third container which was stolen and as to which no bill of lading issued provided that the bill of lading in evidence was the standard form bill of lading that carrier always used holding that terms of bill of lading apply to shipper where it brings suit thereunder holding that carrier may be estopped from collecting freight charges from shipper who paid freight to consolidator in reliance on carriers representation that such payment would discharge shippers bill of lading obligation