Freedom of contract is the subject of tremendous turmoil in maritime transport and has always been the center of controversy between shippers and carriers. The debate goes back to negligence clauses, which the US Harter Act (1893) put an end to, and The Hague Rules, The Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules that were subsequently adopted. Therefore, maritime conventions are based on a mandatory liability regime. The Rotterdam Rules were initially following the path of traditional imperativity. However, a turning point has been initiated with the introduction of volume contract based on the American concept of service contract. Volume contract would allow parties to negotiate freely the conditions of services tailored for their needs. This commercial approach, marking the resurrection of freedom of contract, is supposed to adapt maritime law to the modern trade and liner shipping. Indeed, since the 1980s, the industry has undergone significant transformations to integrate the supply chain of their customers (the shippers). Besides the eternal debate freedom versus imperativity, discussed at length in the literature, analysis of the commercial approach and its consequences has been ignored by the legal community. In the light of the US service contract and the concept of supply chain management, our objective is to examine the basis of this commercial approach to outline the changes the volume contract would imply to transport operators, if the Rotterdam Rules were to come into force.