Although the circumstances arise only infrequently, there are times when shipowners are obliged to spend their own money to avert a threat to cargo; and, if they fail to make the expenditure, they will be liable for resulting cargo loss or damage, even though they would not have been liable had the peril overwhelmed the cargo before they could take action. Such payments are known in the law of carriage of goods by sea as particular charges or special charges, and owners are entitled at common law to restitution from the cargo receivers. Where assureds under a cargo insurance policy incur particular charges to avert an insured peril, they are entitled at common law to restitution from the cargo underwriters —ie, sue and labour expenses. Where the assureds incur particular charges to avert an uninsured peril, they will be entitled to reimbursement from the cargo underwriters if the policy specifically covers ‘‘particular charges’’ .

Cargo afloat in many respects is like an unaccompanied child on an airplane trip. Both are not capable of coping with even small setbacks and are completely dependent upon the carrier—and, perhaps, the kindness of strangers—to protect them from harm. To be sure, Art III of the Hague Rules imposes a duty on the carrier to care for the cargo. But, sometimes the cargo becomes vulnerable to damage for reasons which are not the carrier’s responsibility at all: eg, a collision while anchored, inherent vice, or insufficiency of packaging. And then there are those risks of cargo damage for which under certain circumstances the carrier is exonerated even if its employees are at fault, such as negligent navigation and some fires. It is essential for the well-being of cargo—not to mention the peace of mind of cargo owners and cargo underwriters—that the master at all times be induced to act promptly to protect the cargo. Foremost among such inducements is the knowledge that, if the owners incur expense to protect the cargo, and they are not themselves liable for putting the cargo in such peril, they will be fully reimbursed. In short, the master never should have an excuse for abandoning cargo to a threat, because he was reluctant to spend money to shield it from the danger.