was not sufficient in proving delivery of email by clicking on the send icon automatically that it amounts to good service. The email must of course be dispatched to what is, in fact the email address of the intended recipient. It must not be rejected by the system. Counsel contended that the Defendant can only rely on that email when it can prove by some cogent and reliable evidence that the addressee received the email. Furthermore in ENTORESLTD V MILES FAR EASTCORPORATION [1955]2 QB 327, it was held that where a contract is made by instantaneous communication, the contract is complete only when the acceptance is received. Counsel reiterated his submissions as regards the evidence of what transpired at the scene of the alleged loss that it was hearsay. Counsel submitted that the Defendant had the burden to prove that it acted diligently and that the loss was caused by circumstances beyond their control but this was not done and the only evidence on record is that the Defendant undertook to safely and securely deliver the Plaintiff's cargo. In fact TPW1 testified in cross examination that the loss could have been avoided if for example they had employed the services of an escort showing clearly that the theft was foreseeable and that it could be avoided. Counsel further relied on the case of CANADA SS LINES V THE KING [1952] AC 192, it was seen that if there is a realistic possibility that a party can be made liable irrespective of negligence, an exemption clause will not normally be construed so as to cover liability for negligence. This means that even when the defendants claim they were not negligent, the fact that the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants was one similar to a common carrier relationship, they would be liable even without negligence. Judgment on issue No. 1 I have had time to consider the lengthy written submissions of counsels for the parties, the pleadings and evidence on record. Counsel's for the plaintiff, the defendant and the third-party filed a joint trial bundle in which they agreed on questions of facts namely: That the plaintiff contracted the defendant to transport its consignment of Nile Perch Fish Maws from Kampala to Vietnam and on the 31 of March 2010 the defendant took delivery of the said consignment at the plaintiff’s warehouse on Sir Apollo Kaggwa road in Kampala. The goods were loaded in container number MSKU 433207 – 7 and the defendant acknowledged receipt of the consignment. The defendant informed the plaintiff that the goods were robbed en route to port. On the 6th of April, 2010 the defendant's employee and/or agent wrote to the plaintiffs 15