In The Adamastos case1 Devlin, J., said “this Court does not exist for the purpose of correcting the exercises of commercial men, but for the purpose of giving effect to their intentions where it can penetrate to them through the often very dubious forms of words which they use”. The controversy occasioned by the decision of Hobhouse, J., in The Bijela,2 which was at odds with the market practice of average adjusters, shows that the court does not always achieve this aim. The decision of the Court of Appeal3 to uphold his decision by a majority (Neill and Mann, L.JJ., Hoffman, L.J., dissenting) will do nothing to end the controversy, but more significantly it seems to suggest that the court may have lost sight of the aim expressed by