The shipowners chartered their vessel on a time charter trip, “duration about 70/80 days without guarantee”. The trip went over the 80 days by 23.52 days. The shipowners claimed damages for wrongful detention of the vessel for the overlap. In arbitration, the owners alleged that the words “duration about 70/80 days without guarantee” were the charterers’ estimate of the length of the trip, which they promised was made in good faith and on reasonable grounds. They did not allege that the charterers were in bad faith in making the estimate but that they were negligent. The charterers alleged that the words “without guarantee” meant that there was no commitment on their part, save that the estimate of the charter’s duration had to be made in good faith. Since no allegation of bad faith was made, they argued, they should succeed. The arbitrator concluded that the test of good faith was whether, at the time of fixing, the charterers’ estimate was made reasonably. The arbitrator also made a detailed finding that the charterers had no reasonable ground for making the estimate that they did. On that finding he awarded damages in favour of the shipowners. Leave to appeal was given, and the case came before Longmore, J.

His Lordship proceeded to review the authorities (such as they were) on the words “without guarantee”. In Japy Freres & Co. v. Sutherland & Co.2 the owners chartered their vessel, described as able to carry 600 tons of cargo, “without guarantee”. The Court of Appeal—reversing the decision of the court below—unanimously held that the charterers had no action because the words “without guarantee” excluded any liability for damages on the ground that the deadweight capacity fell short of 600 tons. In another case (unreported and curiously involving the Lendoudis Evangelos II), Benship International v. Demand Shipping Co.,3 the words “one time charter trip … about 40/120 days duration without guarantee” were the subject of decision. Upon a claim by the owners for charterers’ breach in redelivering the ship too early (underlap), Leggatt, J., held that the clause was not a condition nor even a warranty, but a representation which obliged the charterers to make their estimate in good faith. In neither of these cases was there negligence involved in the calculation of the estimate.

In the present case Longmore, J., rejected the owners’ case. Although in this case negligence on the part of the charterers was involved, the judge held that the words WOG excluded the reasonable aspect of the obligation, leaving only an obligation on the charterers to make their estimate in good faith. He held that the test of good faith was that the charterers genuinely believed, at the time of fixing, that the trip would last 70/80 days.