The oldest rule beginning with general

average is the law of the Rhodians which

has been preserved by the fact that it was
reproduced in the Digest of the Roman
Emperor Justinian. This is provided in the
Rhodian Statute on jettison i.e. if goods
are thrown overboard in order to keep the
ship afloat, the loss incurred for the benefit
of all concerned shall be made good by a
contribution of all co-adventurers.
Though the principles of the law are common to
all maritime countries, important differences
exist which make for uncertainty especially as
general average adjustments may have to take
place in various countries. Due to these
reasons after pro long deliberations by
interested parties the known York-Antwerp
Rules were created. The first York Rules were
created in 1864 and the first York-Antwerp
Rules were created in 1890. The present rules
date from 1974. In various countries there is
legislation incorporating these rules but in other
situations they are incorporated as contractual
terms in the charter parties and bills of lading.
The scheme of the Rules is to start off with a
Rule of Interpretation, followed by seven rules,
lettered A to G, setting out general principles.
The lettered Rules are followed by twenty-two
numbered Rules covering special
circumstances, For some time doubts existed
as to what was the relation between the lettered
and the numbered Rules particularly whether a
contribution was due when the event came
within the numbered rules but not within in the
lettered. Roche J in The Makis decided that the
event had to be covered by the lettered rules if
it was to require general average contribution.
The trade countered with what came to be
known as the Makis Agreement, whereby
parties agreed that it was enough if the event
was covered by one of the numbered rules. The
Makis Agreement was effectively adopted by
the York-Antwerp Rules when they were
revised in 1950. After providing for the
adjustment of general average according to the
Rules to the exclusion of inconsistent law and
practice, this Rule provides: Except as provided
by the numbered Rules, general average shall
be adjusted according to the lettered Rules.
Rule A states as follows:-

“There is a general average act when, and

only when, any extraordinary sacrifice or
expenditure is intentionally and
reasonably made or incurred for the
common safety for the purpose or
preserving from peril the property involved
in a common maritime adventure”.
Danger

There has to be actual danger for a sacrifice or

expenditure to be treated as a general average.
Watson v. Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co.
1922 2 K.B. 355

The master of a vessel mistakenly but

reasonably believed that there was fire in
the hold. He turned steam into it with a view
to extinguishing the fire, and thereby
damaged the cargo. It was held that since
there was no actual danger the loss was not
a general average loss.
But in terms of Rule V if a master makes a
sacrifice in a situation of actual danger that
later turns out to have been unnecessary the
master is protected. In the case of Lowndes
and Rudolf it was held that for general
average rule to come into play the ship must
be in actual danger, and it does not matter if
the master is mistaken about the real source
of danger and orders not altogether
appropriate action to be taken
Vlassopoulos v. British & Foreign Marine
Insurance Co.
While a ship was engaged in loading cargo at
Bordeaux the foremast broke, fell on the main
deck and caused a derrick to fall into the hold,
The ship was at not time in danger, but she was
moved into a wet dock for repairs. After
completion she finished loading and put out to
sea. There she fouled submerged wreckage and
damaged the blades of her propeller. This
accident rendered the vessel unfit to encounter
the ordinary perils of the sea, and she put into
Cherbourg for inspection and repairs, these being
necessary for the common safety of ship, cargo
and freight.
Held: Expenses at Bordeaus were not
general average expenditure, since the ship
was at not time in danger. But the expenses
at Cherbourg were general average
expenditure, for the interests in the
adventure were in danger. Per Roche J, at
p.200: Peril, which means the same thing
as danger, is the word used in the General
Rule A, just as it is the word used in the
Marine Insurance Act 1906, s. 66. The
phrase is not “immediate peril or danger”. It
is sufficient to say that the ship must be in
danger, or that the act must be done in
order to preserve her from peril.
It means, or course, that the peril must be
real and not imaginary, that it must be
substantial and not merely slight of
nugatory, In short, it must be a real danger.
At p. 199 the learned judge had said that it
was not necessary for the ship to be
actually in the grip, or even nearly in the
grip, of the disaster that may arise from a
danger. It would be a very bad thing if
shipmasters had to wait until that state of
things arose in order to justify them doing
any act which would be a general average
act.
General Average Acts

Supposing then that danger exists, what acts can

be done which the law will recognize as general
average acts? There are two, as we have already
mentioned: an extraordinary sacrifice, or a like
expenditure. These must now be discussed. First
it should be noticed that both sacrifice and
expenditure must be extraordinary. This means
that what is done to escape the calamity is
something not in incidental to an ordinary voyage
of the kind on which the ship is engaged. The
borderline is finely drawn as appears from the
following illustrations.
Wilson v. Bank of Victoria
A sailing ship with an auxiliary engine was
so damaged by perils of the sea that she
had lost all her sailing power. She therefore
proceeded under her auxiliary steam, and
the expenses of her voyage were thereby
increased by £ 1400. These the ship owner
endeavoured to spread over the interests
involved.

Held: He could not do so, for the

expenditure was not extraordinary.
Robinson v. Price

A ship sprang a leak while at sea and was

kept afloat only by constant pumping, the
pumps being driven by the donkey engine.
The coal, which was sufficient for an
ordinary voyage, ran short, and ship’s spars
and cargo were used for fuel.

Held: This was an extraordinary sacrifice

and the damage was to be made good by
general average contribution.
Jettison

The best-known form of sacrifice is jettison

of the cargo in order to lighten the ship and
keep her afloat.

Deck cargo is nearest at hand when jettison

becomes necessary, and for this reason the
owner of jettisoned deck cargo could in the
old days never expect a contribution from
the other interests. Of course, if his cargo
was in fact saved he had to contribute to the
other interests.
In course of time, it became usual for certain
cargoes, for instance, timer and, later, containers
to be carried on deck, and indeed to adapt or build
ships for those purposes. That is reflected in the
modern York-Antwerp Rules. Rule 1 provides that
‘no jettison shall be made good as general
average, unless such cargo is carried in
accordance with the recognized custom of the
trade’. The Rule does not mention deck cargo
specifically, but it follows from its wording that
jettisoned cargo carried on deck in accordance
with a recognized trade custom ranks as a general
average loss. Thus, only such cargo does not so
rank that is not stowed in accordance with a
custom, and that applies both to deck and under
deck cargo.
Other sacrifices are the burning of spars and
cargo after the ship had sprung a leak and
additional fuel was required to work the
pumps, again, where a vessel had stranded
and in an endeavour to refloat her the
engines were intentionally overstrained and
additional coal was burnt, the ship owner
was held entitled to contribution in general
average.

Finally, damage inflicted on third parties,

such as pier and dock owners, may
constitute a general average sacrifice, and
all parties must contribute to the damages
which one of them becomes liable to pay.
Austin Friars S.S.Co. v. Spillers & Bakers

A ship had stranded in the Severn; she was

seriously damage, and ship and cargo were in
imminent danger. The vessel was got off with the
assistance of tugs. The pilot intended to take her
into dock, which involved her striking a pier, since
she was difficult to handle, having no steam of her
own and only her hand-steering gear available.
The ship hit the pier and inflicted £ 5000 worth of
damage, which the ship owner had to pay to the
pier owners.

Held: This was a general average act, it was a

reasonable thing to do in the interests of ship and
cargo, and the latter had to contribute.
Expenditure
The other form a general average act may take is
special expenditure. As was pointed above, the
expenditure, in order to qualify for contribution,
must occur in the same sort of circumstances as
the sacrifice. But this is not altogether true; for the
actual expenditure, that is, the payment, is usually
made long after the measures for the safety of
ship, cargo and freight have been taken. Suppose
a steamer develops engine trouble preventing her
from reaching port under her own steam; if the
master enters into a salvage agreement with
another vessel whereby this vessel is to tow the
disabled steamer, the remuneration payable to the
salvors may be a general average expenditure
though payment is made when there is no longer
any danger of the adventure failing.
But not every salvage agreement is covered;
the other conditions necessary to qualify for
general average must, of course, also
subsist. If it turns out that the salvage
agreement was unreasonable, that is, for
example, if there existed at the time no
extraordinary peril, the ship owner alone has
to bear the costs. Even if the master acted
reasonably in incurring expenses for the
common safety, it does not follow that the
whole amount must be contributed to by the
other interests. It may have been reasonable
to make a towage agreement, but the sum
promised to the tug may have been
unreasonably high.
Other very important instances of general
average expenditure are necessary repairs
and other expenses incidental thereto. A
ship may have to put into a port of refuge
for repairs without which the voyage cannot
be completed. When entering and leaving
the harbour port charges, pilotage and
towage fees are incurred; moreover, cargo
may have to be temporarily discharged to
enable workmen to reach the damaged part
of the ship, and where this happens
payments must be made for discharging,
lighters, warehousing and reloading.
Again, the first port of refuge may have
inadequate repair facilities, so that the
damaged ship needs towing to a suitable
port. Which of these expenses qualify for
general average treatment?

Purists may entertain doubt because some of

the expenses are incurred when the ship is
no longer in actual danger. Most doubts are
now set at rest by Rule X, which provides
that all these expenses, including those at
the second port of refuge, are general
average expenses.
Voluntary, or Intentional Act

To qualify for contribution, sacrifice or

expenditure must be voluntary, to use the
words of the common law and section 66(2)
Marine Insurance Act, or intentional, to use
those of the York-Antwerp Rules; both
words have the same meaning.
This principle is strictly applied. For instance, fire
breaks out on board, a serious danger to ship and
cargo, and everything done to extinguish the fire,
which includes beaching or scuttling the ship, is
allowable, for those acts are intentional. But
damage done by smoke and heat alone does not
attract a contribution (Rule iii), for the fire
engendering smoke and heat was not intended. Of
course, smoke created by pumping water on the
fire was created intentionally, but no one can
distinguish between smoke created by fire and
smoke created by water. So all smoke damage
must be borne by whoever owns the affected
property.
Again, suppose part of the ship, for instance masts,
have been carried away by the storm; they
overhang the side of the ship and though still
connected with it are effectively lost. Then the
master given the order to cut those overhanging
parts away – surely an intentional act, and yet the
cutting away is not a general average loss (Rule
IV). Why not? Because what was cut away was
already lost involuntarily when the order was given.

This strict interpretation of the term ‘intentional’

does not, however, mean that the order to sacrifice
or to incur expenditure must lead to the exact loss
contemplated when the order was given.
M’Call & Co. v. Houlder Bros.

A ship’s propeller sustained damage so that the

ship ceased to be navigable and the master put
into a port of refuge for repairs. There was a
perishable cargo on board which could not be
warehoused. In order to facilitate repairs the
master set the ship down by the head with cargo
on board. The tipping of the ship caused seawater
to run into the hold and to damage part of the
cargo. It was contended that this was not a
general average loss inasmuch as the damage to
the cargo had not been foreseen as a
consequence of the tipping of the ship, and that the
damage to the cargo was not incurred voluntarily.
Held: It was ‘not necessary that a particular
loss should have been contemplated if it be
incidental to the general average act’.

The act must be ordered by the person in

control of the vessel. This is, in the ordinary
way, the master, who in this respect is the
agent of all parties concerned. It makes no
difference that the actual order is given by
some other authority, provided the master
sanctions it.
Papayanni v. Grampian S.S. Co.

A fire broke out on board, and the master put

into port where the fire increased so that he
sent for the captain of the port where the fire
increased so that he sent for the captain of
the port. The latter ordered the scuttling of
the ship, and the master believed this course
to be best in the interests of ship and cargo,
raised no objection, and in the opinion of the
court, sanctioned it and thereby made it his
own. It was therefore held to be voluntary.
In an old case it was also held that where
the master was taken prisoner, and the ship
was in control of a prizemaster and both the
latter and mate together ordered a jettison
for the commons safety, this act was
ordered by the proper person.
Reasonable Act

In carrying out the

general average act
the master must act
reasonably in the
interests of all
concerned, even if his
act is one of
considerable hazard.
The Seapool

A ship with a cargo of coal on board was anchored

off the pier. A sudden gale sprang up causing the
ship to drag her anchor. There was a danger of
the ship losing the propellers and possibly
breaking her back. The master accordingly
decided to put the ship broadside against the pier,
using the latter as a lever so as to get the ship’s
head into such a position that he could steam out
to sea. The operation was successful, but through
bumping the ground and grinding the pier, £ 14000
damage was caused to ship and pier.

Held: The action taken by the master was

reasonable in the circumstances and the loss was
a general average loss.
Common Safety

The act must have been done ‘for the common

safety for the purpose of preserving from peril the
property involved in a common maritime
adventure’. Common safety, or common benefit, as
the common law terms it, means safety or benefit to
all parties interested in the adventure. In one case,
where the cargo was removed from a stranded
vessel into lighters, not with the object of lightening
the ship, but of preserving the cargo, and
subsequently expenses were incurred for getting
the ship off, it was held that the cargo put into
lighters need not contribute.
Wills J laid down: If the object of the removal
has been the lightening of the ship for the
common safety, and the object of effecting
the removal in such a fashion as to avoid
jettison has been to do that which must be
got overboard something less wasteful than
actual jettison, there seems to be no reason
whatever for drawing a distinction between
such a case and that of actual jettison, so far
as liability to general average is concerned.
But if the lightening of the ship formed no part, or
no appreciable part, of the purpose for which the
removal was effected, if the object of the removal
was not to minimize the cost of jettison but to get
out of harm’s way the thing removed and to
prevent it from being or remaining at risk at all, it
seems to me that a different result may very well
ensue, and that a portion of cargo landed under
such circumstances may well be regarded as
separated from the adventure, and no longer liable
for contribution. There is authority for saying that
the purpose for which an act causing loss is done
may determine whether it constitutes general
average or not’.
Time of loss

In order to be a general average loss, the

loss must have happened during the
adventure, and it is useful to remember that
this is not terminated until the discharge of
the cargo has been completed. Thus where
1300 tons had already been discharged, and
only 100 tons remained on board, and fire
broke out in the hold which made it
necessary to pour in water, thereby
damaging the cargo, it was held that the ship
owners were liable to contribute to the
damage.
Loss Direct Consequence

A master’s general average act may lead to many

kinds of loss, not all of which can be allowable, just
as damage caused by a common law tort may be
too remote to qualify for compensation, as will be
explained when we discuss collision damage in
Chapter 21. Under Rule C of the York-Antwerp
Rules, a general average contribution can be
claimed only for the direct consequences of a
general average act, that is, those which flow in an
unbroken sequence from the act, as opposed to
indirect consequences, where the sequence is
broken by an intervening extraneous cause. In the
case where this was lid down the ship was carried
from her moorings in a storm.
A tug was signaled to tow her to safety and was
engaged under United Kingdom Standard Towing
Conditions, which contained a clause obliging the
tow to indemnify the tug for loss or damage
suffered as a result of the towage operation. After a
ten-minute tow the line parted and wrapped itself
round the tug’s propeller, which in turn led to the
loss of the tug. Under the indemnity clause the tow
was liable to pay for the tug’s loss, and this
payment was held to be a direct consequence of
the general average act, namely, the engagement
of the tug to guard the ship against a marine
danger, and for this expenditure the owners were
entitled to a general average contribution.
Since this case was decided the new
Rule VI expressly provides that savage
expenditure, whether by contract or
otherwise, is allowable.

Rule C declares not allowable, as not

being direct consequences of the general
average act, loss or damage to ship or
cargo through delay or loss of market
suffered by the cargo.
Success
Finally, both at common law and under the
York-Antwerp Rules, contribution can be
demanded only if the general average act
is successful, in other words if the
adventure as a whole has really been
saved; otherwise the loss lies where it falls.
The whole idea underlying the doctrine of
general average is that it is just that those
whose property has been saved should
contribute to those whose property has
been sacrificed to save theirs.
If the sacrifice is not successful, in the
sense that no property escapes the
dangers from which the sacrifice was
intended to save it, this does not apply.

It is convenient here to mention a special

problem. What happens if the general
average act has been successful, but
subsequently, owing to new causes, ship
and cargo are lost?
Suppose a ship has suffered a general
average loss, for instance, in the form of
expenses incurred at a port of refuge for
repairs, and incidental expenses, and
subsequently ship and cargo are totally lost
before the destination is reached. The
question arises as to whether the interests
which have benefited by the general
average expenditure must still contribute
though subsequently this benefit has been
lost. The answer is that no contribution is
due.
At first sight this might seem inequitable, but the
reason is fairly clear. Every maritime adventure is,
to a certain extent, governed by a rule of limited
liability; in principle no co-adventurer is supposed to
lose directly more than the amount originally staked.
In other words, if a party to the adventure, say, a
cargo-owner, is called upon to make a payment
directly arising from the adventure, such as a
general average contribution, he must be able to
make the payment from the goods on board, out of
the fund that has been saved by the general
average act. If after the general average loss, but
before the end of the adventure, the cargo originally
liable is lost, there is no longer any fund out of
which the cargo interest can pay its contribution.
Who must contribute?

Having thus determined the conditions under

which an act amounts to a general average
act, and the sacrifices and expenses that are
apportionable, we now proceed to inquire
what interests are liable to contribute to the
general average loss.
Now, as we have see, there are in the
normal case three interests engaged in the
adventure, namely, the ship, the cargo and
the freight. The position of ship and cargo
owners is easy to understand; but when we
come to freight it may not, at first sight,
appear that there is reasons receives the
freight. This may, of course, be so, but not
necessarily, since the person entitled to the
freight may be the charterer, and even if the
owner of the sip and the person entitled to
the freight are identical it is still necessary to
distinguish between ship and freight are
identical it is still necessary to distinguish
between ship and freight.
The reason briefly is this: it is one thing to
suffer a loss as ship owner because, say,
the engines were overstrained; it is another
matter not to receive freight on jettisoned
cargo. The position will perhaps become
clearer if we disregard for the time being,
the persons who have to contribute, and
look at ship, cargo and freight as if they
were persons or interests; in doing so no
confusion is likely to arise where two
interests happen to be united in the same
individual.
Lives

Ship, cargo and freight are liable for

contribution to a general average loss.
Everything not falling within this category
need not bear any share in the loss though
other interests are in fact involved in the
adventure. This applies first of all to lives.
Neither passenger nor crew need contribute,
for the life of man has no assessable value,
it cannot be part of a fund out of which the
contribution can be paid.
Passengers’ luggage
Probably by reason of its negligible value of
the difficulty of assessing it, passengers’
luggage is free; similar considerations apply
to mails and, perhaps, passengers’ luggage
stored in the hold.
Seamen’s wages

Finally, seamen’s wages do not form part

of the fund that contributes to a general
average loss.
Ship

As regards the ship, it should be

remembered that the ship owner’s liability is
excluded I the case of fire on board, and if
the general average loss occurred owing to
a fire the ship owner might say that as he is
ot liable in damages, neither need he
contribute to the loss as general average
contribution. But it has been held that this
defence does not avail the ship owner, since
section 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act
has no application to general average.
 Cargo

No particular difficulty exists with regard to

the cargo owner’s duty to contribute, though
valuation is complicated. Mails because of
valuation difficulties, do not, in practice,
contribute. The cargo cannot escape
contribution merely because the general
average loss was occasioned by one of the
perils excepted in the bill of lading.
Of course, if we speak of a general average
contribution this contribution cannot be
expected to cover the whole value of the
loss. For it is the very idea of general
average to distribute such loss equally, and
if the owner of jettisoned cargo were fully
compensated, he would suffer no loss at all,
but the contributory interests would do so to
the extent of their contribution.
General Average and carrier’s fault

Of course, a party who is responsible for the loss

he has suffered cannot claim contribution though it
may have been a general average loss, as where
damage to the ship was due to starting on the
voyage in an unseaworthy condition, or without due
diligence having been exercised to make her
seaworthy, where the Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act 1971 applies. Indeed inmost cases where the
right to contribution was disputed, the defence has
been the actionable fault of the party seeking
contribution, for instance the unseaworthiness of
the ship, or the carrier’s deviation.
But where the party claiming contribution,
though having occasioned the loss, has
contracted out of his liability by exception
clauses in the contract of carriage, or where
the party is exempted by statute, e.g. under
section 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act
1894, his right to claim general average is
not loss.
Dreyfus & Co. v. Tempus Shipping Co.

A ship took on board bunker coal which was

unsuitable; the ship was therefore unseaworthy.
Fire broke out in the bunker and general average
expenditure was incurre to save ship and cargo.
The cargo owners refused to contribute and based
their refusal on the contention that the ship was
unseaworthy.

Held: Ship owners entitled to contribution, since

unders section 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act
1894, they were not liable for damage caused by
fire; moreover the unseaworthiness was not the
cause of the casualty.
General Average Bond

So far we have seen the duty to contribute to a

general average loss was founded either on a term
I the contract of affreightment implied by the
common law, or expressly inserted into it by
reference to the York-Antwerp Rules or some other
system. Sometimes, however, an express contract
is made before the cargo is delivered at the port of
destination by making the cargo owners sign a
general average bond. The rights and duties
created by such a bond are specially important
where the contract of affreightment had been
previously discharged, for instance by deviation,
and no claim for general average contribution
could any longer be founded on the contract.
Again, where cargo owners, other than
shippers, had signed a Lloyd’s Average
Bond it was held that they were bound by
the term in the bill of lading providing for
general average to be determined according
to general average rules, and could not be
heard to say that, as they were not parties
to the original contract, they were only liable
at common law.
Finally, such bonds may carry with them
advantages relating to time bars. Thus although a
general average dispute in principle arises out of
the contact of carriage and is therefore subject to a
time bar in an arbitration clause, the alteration of
such a contract by a separate undertaking to pay
general average is to subject to that time bar but to
the general period of limitation governing contacts.
Moreover, agreement to the Lloyd’s Average Bond
may have the effect of postponing the
commencement of limitation from the time of the
general average event to the time of final
adjustment, the bond being ‘a fresh agreement
which stands on its own independently of the bill of
lading’.
Assessment of contribution

The general average loss must be borne by all who

are interested proportionately. This involves the
fixing of values on the basis of which the
contribution is assessed. As any contribution must
come out of the fund saved, it is natural that the
material value is the saved value, that is, the value
at the port of destination, even though since the
general average loss the relative values of ship and
cargo have substantially changed. The estimation of
these values, including the items to be allowed, is
expert work, and is invariably carried out by
professional men, called average adjusters.
Their practice, however, varies from country
to country, as also do the various laws.
Where, therefore, the port of destination is a
foreign port the foreign average statement is
only binding if the contract of affreightment
so provides. These difficulties are overcome
by agreeing on the application of the York-
Antwerp Rules, which not only lay down
principles of general average, but also
establish a system of adjustment.
Thus under Rule XIII certain deductions from
the cost of repairs of the ship are made in
respect of ‘new for old’, one-third for vessels
built more than fifteen years before the
casualty, and Rule XVII provides for cargo to
contribute on the basis of the invoice value,
and the ship without taking account of its
charter value, a solution that simplifies
adjustment compared with earlier practice,
when the market value determined
calculation.
Each interest which has suffered a general
average loss becomes a creditor of the interests
saved and has a direct claim against each of them
for a pro rata contribution towards his indemnity,
which can be enforced by action as well as by lien.

General average contribution may, of course, be

sued for in the courts, with interest a 7 per cent
(Rule XXI), but special remedies have been
developed to meet the situation; just as in other
branches of law the person entitled to general
average contribution is given the means of
safeguarding himself against possible failure by the
contributors.
First in importance ranks the lien. It is
exercises by the master, who is regarded as
the agent of all the parties for the purpose of
enforcing the lien; as such he is bound to
take reasonable steps for safeguarding their
interests. Strangely enough, general average
did not come within the jurisdiction of the
Admiralty Court, so that contributions had to
be sued for at common law. It follows that the
lien against a contributor is not in the nature
of the wide maritime lien; rather is it a
possessory lien, which is discharged when
possession is given up.
The actual exercise of the lien, e.g. on cargo,
would usually, especially in modern times,
work great hardship; the process of working
out, or adjusting, the amounts owning by way
of contribution from the various interests
involved is a lengthy one and may take some
months, The courts have, therefore, decided
that the master sufficiently discharges his duty
if he accepts a sufficient deposit in cash or
other suitable security for the amount owing.
In practice the security takes the form of a
Lloyd’s Average Bond, so called from the fact
that it was drafted under the auspices of
Lloyd’s.
It can be seen that the general average rules
are complex, and a little thought will disclose
that average adjustments, involving as they
do difficult valuations, are protracted and
costly. For some time it has therefore been
discusses whether it would not be better to
abolish the general average concept, let the
loss lie where it falls as elsewhere, so that
any loss is covered by insurance, Remember
that general average became a problem
many centuries before insurance had been
developed as a refined and comprehensively
used instrument.
We cannot go into this argument, but only
wish to indicate that those believing in the
need to retain general average argue that in
fact not all interests in jeopardy in a sea
adventure are fully insured. Besides, they
point out that abolition would confront the
master with additional problems; after the
event he may face complaints that he had
deliberately favoured, say, his owner’s
interests at the expense of those of cargo
owners.