Before Hobhouse, J., whose decision1 was noted in an earlier issue,2 it was first argued that acceptance of the nomination was like acceptance in sale of goods: the owner, regardless of his knowledge of the state of the port, lost the right to refuse to load there, and hence was in breach of contract in sailing away after arrival. The analogy with sale of goods was held inappropriate: the owner is entitled and indeed in many cases bound to assume that the charterer’s orders are reasonably given and to endeavour to comply with them. Accepting the order did not, therefore, of itself debar the owner from removing the vessel when the port proved unsafe.

Hobhouse, J., then held, however, that the owner knew of the port’s unsafe state and had waived the right to refuse to go there. Hence, he was not entitled at common law to remove the ship. He was, however, entitled to do so and call for fresh orders by virtue of a specific provision in the charterparty; and, since no such orders had been given, both parties were released.