LIBERTY, 408 F.3d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir.2005) (“Kukje II”). This rule is generally accepted by courts in this and other circuits. See All Pacific Trading, Inc. v. Vessel M/V HANJIN YOSU, 7 F.3d 1427, 1432 (9th Cir.1993) (“At the very least, Plaintiffs initiation of this suit constituted acceptance of the terms of the Hanjin bills of lading.”) cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1194, 114 S.Ct. 1301, 127 L.Ed.2d 653 (1994); Mitsui & Co. (USA), Inc. v. MIRA M/V, 111 F.3d 33, 36 (5th Cir.1997) (“the district court did not err in determining that, by filing a lawsuit for damages under the bill of lading, [the shipper] has accepted the terms of the bill of lading, including the unnegotiated forum selection clause”); F.D. Import & Export Corp. v. M/V REEFER SUN, 248 F.Supp.2d 240, 248 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>); Farrell Lines Inc. v. Columbus Cello-Poly
holding that bill of lading not charterparty governed contract dispute between carrier and shipper holding that forum selection clause in a bill of lading issued to an nvocc binds the cargo owner because the nvocc acted as the cargo owners agent in accepting the bill of lading holding that terms of bill of lading apply to shipper where it brings suit thereunder 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 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