(A) 95% FREIGHT LESS COMMISSIONS ON B/L(S) INTAKEN WEIGHT SHALL BE PAYABLEWITHIN 3 BANKING DAYS AFTER SIGNING & RELEASING BILL(S) OFLADING MARKED "CLEAN ON BOARD" AND"FREIGHT PAYABLE AS PERC/P".
(B) IN CASE "FREIGHT PREPAID" BILLS OF LADING ARE REQUIRED, AGENTS ATLOADING PORT TO BE IN CUSTODY OF BILL(S) OF LADING. BILL(S) OF LADING ARE TO BEIMMEDIATELY RELEASED UPON RECEIPT OF CHARTERER'S BANK CONFIRMATION THAT 100%FREIGHT, LESS COMMISSIONS HAS BEEN IRREVOCABLY REMITTED TO OWNER'S DIRECT BANKACCOUNT.
Refer to theemail on 30 MAY 2018 sent by Hongda regarding the delayed cause by vessel hatchand we have incurred the penalty from our buyer.
So we haveto claim back from owner back to back as follow.
0.25% perday x USD278 x 6,599.972MT x 3 days.
Duly noted charterers’ last, but regret that Owners are unable to agree the charterers to make any deduction from freight payment.
First of all, It’s well established that not every cross claim could be deducted from freight payment. Charterers may refer to The “Brede”, 2 Lloyd's Rep. 333 ( H.L) and The “Aries”, 1 Lloyd’s Rep.334(H.L), Where House of Lord upheld decision of The “Brede” case.
And《Scruttonon Charterparties》which provides:
The freighter will not be entitled to make deductions from the freight for the damage.
Secondly, Charterers’ alleged claim which is remoteness. For this Charterers please refer to leading case Hadley v. Baxendale(1854) 9 Ex. 341, Where Justice Baron Alderson said in his judgement as below:
Now we think the proper rule is such as the present is this: Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally,i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result ofthe breach of it. Now, if the special circumstances under which the contractwas actually made where communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants, andthus known to both parties, the damages resulting from the breach of such acontract, which they would reasonably contemplate, would be the amount of injury which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under thesespecial circumstances so known and communicated. But, on the other hand, ifthese special circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking thecontract, he, at the most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances, from such a breach of contract. For such loss would neither have flowed naturally from the breach of this contract in the great multitude of such cases occurring under ordinary circumstances, nor were the special circumstances, which, perhaps,would have made it a reasonable and natural consequence of such breach of contract, communicated to or known by the defendants. The Judge ought,therefore, to have told the jury, that, upon the fats then before them, they ought not to take the loss of profits into consideration at all in estimatingthe damages. There must therefore be a new trial in this case.
Charterers’ alleged claim which are wholly unknown to Owners, not in Owners’ contemplation before fix this shipment.Therefore this alleged claim is remoteness.
Hope above are clear and will be acceptable by the charterers.
For good order sake, Charterers are called upon to arrange remittance before arrival.
承租人声称的索赔是买家所谓的延迟交付货物的索赔，而其计算方式，系数x每吨货价x货量x天数。但在签订该合同的时候，出租人完全不知道会有这种索赔，该索赔并不在出租人的意料之中。如果承租人想索赔，必须在签订合同之前，明确告诉出租人，任何因船方的原因导致了延迟都将面临买家的索赔，出租人在得知该情况下，仍然签订合同；那么该索赔才会变得可追偿。如所援引的著名先例Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341案，在该案中，涉及的原告的工厂因蒸汽机的轴承断裂导致停产，于是委托被告出租人运送该轴承到另外一个地方的厂家再生产同样的轴承，但是被告出租人比原计划迟了几天才交到厂家，造成工厂比计划相应迟了几天才重新生产。原告于是找被告出租人索赔如果正常交付，可以提早几天恢复生产所能赚取到利润损失。但是法院判定，被告出租人延迟交付轴承，给工厂恢复生产造成延误所产生的利润损失是被告无法合理预料的，被告在签约当时并不知道原告没有备用轴承，更不知道延迟交付会随后造成延迟恢复生产而导致所谓的利润损失。Baron Alderson法官在判决中说到：我们认为目前适当的规则是这样的，如果双方签订了其中一方违约的合同，另一方应该就这种违约行为应得到的损害应该是公平的并且合理地被认为是自然地（即根据事物的通常过程）从这种违反合同本身引起的，或者在他们签订合同时可以合理地认为都在双方的预料之中，作为违反它的可能结果。现在，如果原告向被告传达并由双方知晓的合同实际发生的特殊情况，他们合理预期的违反合同的损害将是在通常所知和传达的特殊情况下违反合同通?；嵩斐傻纳撕?。但另一方面，如果这些特殊情况对于违约方来说完全是未知的，那么他最多只能在他的预期中考虑一般会出现的伤害的数量，而在众多案件不受任何特殊情况下的这种违约行为的影响。对于这种损失，在普通情况下发生的大量此类案件中，既不会因违反合同而自然流露，也不会由于这种特殊情况而导致违约的合理和自然的后果，传达给被告或被告知。因此，法官应该告诉陪审团，在摆在他们面前的丰满的事实前，他们根本不应该在估计损失时考虑利润损失，因此本案必须重新审判。
一、Dakin v Oxley (1864) 15 CBNS 647案
The question for us to consider is, whether a charterer whose cargo has been damaged by the fault of the master and the crew so as uponarrival at the port of discharge to be worth less than the freight, is entitled to excuse himself from payment of freight by abandoning the cargo to the shipowner. We think not: and we should not have taken time to consider, but for the general importance of the subject, and of its having been suggested thatour law was silent upon this question, and that the plea was warranted by the usage and law of other maritime countries, which, it was said, we ought to adopt .
It ought to be borne in mind, when dealing with suchcases, that the true test of the right to freight is the question whether the service in respect of which the freight was contracted to be paid has been substantially performed; and, according to the law of England, as a rule,freight is earned by the carriage and arrival of the goods ready to be delivered to the merchant, though they be in a damaged state when they arrive.If the shipowner fails to carry the goods for the merchant to the destined port, the freight is not earned. If he carry part, but not the whole, nofreight is payable in respect of the part not carried, and freight is payable in respect of the part carried unless the charterparty make the carriage of the whole a condition precedent to the earning of any freight –a case which has not within our experience arisen in practice . . .
Little difficulty exists in applying the above test where the cargo upon arrival is deficient in quantity. Where the cargo, without lossor destruction of any part, has become accidentally swelled (Gibson v Sturge 10 Exch 622), or, perhaps, diminished, as, by drying (Jacobsen’s Sea Laws, Book 3, ch 2, p 220), freight (usage of trade apart) ispayable upon the quantity shipped, because that is what the contract refers to. . .
In the case of an actual loss or destruction by sea-damage of so much of the cargo that no substantial part of it remains; as,if sugar in mats, shipped as sugar and paying so much per ton, is washed away,so that only a few ounces remain, and the mats are worthless, the question would arise whether practically speaking any part of the cargo contracted to be carried has arrived .
Where the quantity remains unchanged, but by sea-damage the goods have been deteriorated in quality, the question of identity arises ina different form, as, for instance, where a valuable picture has arrived as apiece of spoilt canvas, cloth in rags, or crockery in broken shreds, iron allor almost all rust, rice fermented or hides rotten.
In both classes of cases, whether of loss of quantity orchange in quality, the proper course seems to be the same, viz, to ascertain from the terms of the contract, construed by mercantile usage, if any, what was the thing for the carriage of whichfreight was to be paid, and by the aid of a jury to determine whether that thing, or any and how much of it, has substantially arrived.
If it has arrived, though damaged, the freight is payableby the ordinary terms of the charterparty; and the question of fortuitous damage must be settled with the underwriters, and that of culpable damage in adistinct proceeding for such damage against the ship captain or owners.There would be apparent justice in allowing damage of the latter sort to be set offor deducted in an action for freight; and this is allowed in some (at least) ofthe United States, Parsons on Mercantile Law, 172, n.
But our law does not allow deduction in that form; and,as at present administered, for the sake perhaps of speedy settlement of freight and other liquidated demands, it affords the injured party a remedy bycross-action only: Davidson v Gwyne 12 East 381; Stinson v Hall 1 Hurlst & N 831; Sheels(or Shields) v Davies 4 Campb 119, 6 Taunt 65; the judgment of Parke B in Mondel v Steel 8 M & W 858; The Don Francisco 32 LJ Adm 14, per Dr Lushington. It would be unjust, and almost absurd that, without regard to the comparative value of the freight and cargo whenuninjured, the risk of a mercantile adventure should be thrown upon the shipowner by the accident of the value of the cargo being a little more than the freight; so that a trifling damage, much less than the freight, would reduce the value to less than the freight; whilst, if the cargo had been much more valuable and the damage greater, or the cargo worth a little less than the freight and the damage the same, so as to bear a greater proportion to the whole value, the freight would have been payable, and the merchant have been putto his cross-action. Yet this is the conclusion we are called upon by the defendant to affirm in his favour, involving no less than that that damage,however trifling, if culpable, may work a forfeiture of the entire freight,contrary to the just rule of our law, by which each party bears the damage resulting from his own breach of contract, and no more.
The extreme case above supposed is not imaginary; for, it has actually occurred on many occasions, and notably upon the cessation of warbetween France and England in 1748, which caused so great a fall in prices thatthe agreed freight in many instances exceeded the value of the goods. The merchants in
It is evident enough from this review of the law that there is neither authority nor sound reason for upholding the proposed defence.The plea is naught, and there must be judgment for the plaintiff.
二、HenriksensRederi AS v. T.H.Z. Rolimpex (The Brede), (
挪威的公司Henriksens Rederi A/S（以下简称“出租人”）在1964年1月将Brede轮（以下简称“该轮”）租给波兰的公司T.H.Z.Rolimpex（以下简称“承租人”），合同以金康格式，执行一个从缅甸的仰光运送大米到波兰的格丁尼亚航次，运费为每长吨110美元。
The freight to be paid in transferable Pounds Sterling in London to Hambros Bank Ltd.,London, for account of Henriksens Rederi A/S, Oslo, as follows:- 80% within 7days of signing BS/L non-returnable ship and/or cargo lost or not lost and the balance within 17 days of right and true delivery.
Any dispute arising under this charter party or out of any Bills of Lading issued under this charter party shall be referred to arbitration in London.
The Owners' liability under this charter party shall be governed by the terms of the Hague Rules contained in the International Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to Bills of Lading, dated Brussels, 25th August, 1924.
.. . In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from allliability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have beendelivered.
首先：当交叉诉讼直接导致索赔减少或消减时。例如货物在保修期内销售的情况，由于违反保修条款，货物价值低于合同价格?；蛘?，在建筑物上花费工作和劳力的情况，由于缺陷，实际完成的工作价值低于合同价格。在每一个这样的案件中，显而易见的是，原告未能按照合同完成商定的工作，无权获得整个商定的金额。因此，他不应该为这笔款项收回判决，而应该只收取较少的款项。当被告说：“你没有按照商定的标准完成工作，因此你无权享有约定的价格”，这是法律上的辩护问题，而不是抵消或反诉。在典型案件Mondel v. Steel, (1841)案中，Baron Parke的言论证实了这一点：被告不应通过交叉诉讼性质的程序来抵销他因违反合同而遭受的损害赔偿金额，而仅仅是通过显示主体的损失程度来?；ぷ约?，由于违反合同，该诉讼的事项是值得的。
First: When the cross-claim goes directly in diminution or extinction of the claim. Such ascases where goods are sold with a warranty, and by reason of the breach of warranty the goods are worth less than the contract price. Or, cases where workand labour are expended on a building and, by reason of defects, the workactually done is worth less than the contract price.
In every such case it is plain that the plaintiff, not having completed the agreed workin accordance with the contract, is not entitled to the whole of the agreed sum. He ought not, therefore, to recover judgment for that sum, but only forthe lesser sum. When the defendant says: "You have not done the work up to the agreed standard, and you are, therefore, not entitled to the agreed price", that is matter of defence in law and not of set-off or counterclaim. This is borne out by the words of Baron Parke in the leading caseof Mondel v. Steel, (1841) 8 M.& W. at pp. 871-2:
It is competent for the defendant not to set-off, by a proceeding in the nature of across-action, the amount of damages which he has sustained by breach of the contract but simply to defend himself by showing how much less the subject-matter of the action was worth, by reason of the breach of contract.
Denning勋爵认为就货物销售合同而言，类似的规则现在是法定的，见1893年的“货物销售法案”第53节。买方可以设定违反保修条款的价格减少或消灭。这显然是辩护的问题。就劳动合同和劳动合同而言，这不是法定的，但Denning勋爵认为这是法律上的辩护问题，而不仅仅是抵消或反诉。尽管如此，被告以辩护方式设立起来并不是义不容辞的责任。如果他愿意，他可以支付约定的价格，并自行采取单独的诉讼来减少他所遭受的价值下降和其他任何损害，参见Davisv. Hedges，（1871）L.R.6 Q.B.687。
迄今为止，Denning勋爵认为他只考虑了由于违约导致争议事项价值较低的数额，这是法律上的辩护问题。在过去的时间里，它可以通过非欺骗的呼吁或永不负债的方式提出，这表明这是法律上的辩护。在现代，这是一个可以在没有特别通知的情况下在县级法院采取的辩护方式，参见Brightv. Rogers,  1 K.B. 219案，这个辩护不受任何时效限制。
第二，Denning勋爵认为交叉诉讼不会降低所售商品的价值或完成的工作，但会造成其他损害。例如货物延迟交付并且买方因拖延而造成损失的交叉诉讼案件，或者被雇用于清洁窗户的承包商疏忽地断开椅子腿部的情况。在过去，这种损害只能在一个单独的诉讼中被主张，见Mondelv. Steel, (1841) 8 M. & W.at p. 872案，并且在适当的情况下无疑会受到时效限制。但是，自从1873年的“司法组织法”以来，这些损害赔偿可以通过衡平抵销减少或消减索赔来设立，任何超额部分都将成为反诉的对象。 Lyndhurst，L.C.勋爵在Rawson v. Samuel, (1841) Craig &Phillips 161案，178，最近由法院在Morgan & Son v. MartinJohnson & Co.,  1 K.B. 107, 及 Hanak v. Green,  2 Q.B. 9案中考虑了公平抵销的范围。只要交叉诉讼是在与索赔相同的交易中产生的，就可以使用；或者与索赔密切相关的交易。
Second: Whenthe cross-claim does not reduce the value of the goods sold or the work done but causes other damage. Such as cases where goods are delayed in delivery andthe buyer has a cross-claim for damages for delay: or where a contractor who isemployed to clean windows negligently breaks the leg of a chair. In former times such damages could only be claimed in a separate action, see Mondel v.Steel, (1841) 8 M. & W.at p. 872, and would no doubt be subject to a time bar, where appropriate.Since the Judicature Act 1873, however, these damages can be set up by way ofan equitable set-off in diminution or extinction of the claim - leaving anyover-plus to be the subject of a counterclaim. The scope of equitable set-offwas considered by Lord Lyndhurst, L.C., in Rawson v. Samuel, (1841) Craig &Phillips 161, at p. 178, and recently by this Court in Morgan & Son v.Martin Johnson & Co.,  1 K.B. 107, and Hanak v. Green,  2 Q.B.9. It is available whenever the cross-claim arises out of the same transaction as the claim; orout of a transaction that is closely related to the claim.
Although itis often described as an "equitable set-off", it would, I think, bemore accurately stated to be an "equitable defence" see sect. 24 (2),(3) of the Judicature Act 1873, and sects. 38 and 39 of the Judicature Act,1925. When the contractor sues for the contract price, the employer can say tohim: "You are not entitled to that sum because you have yourself broken the very contract on which you sue, and you cannot fairly claim that sum unlessyou take into account the loss you have occasioned to me". It is on a par with the case of a defendant who says that the plaintiff has repudiated the contract by an anticipatory breach, or that the plaintiff has been guilty of a breach going tothe root of the contract. On accepting it, the defendant is discharged from further performance and can set up the breach as a defence. So also with any breach by the plaintiff of the self-same contract, the defendant can inequity set up his loss in diminution or extinction of the contract price. It isin the nature of a defence. As such it is not subject to a time bar.
三、AriesTanker Corporation v. Total Transport Ltd. (The Aries), (H.L.)  1 Lloyd'sRep. 334案
That a claim in respect of cargo cannot be asserted by way of deduction from the freight, is a long established rule in English law. It dates atleast from Sheels v. Davies, (1814) 4 Camp. 119: it received authoritativeapproval in 1864 from an eminent Court in Dakin v. Oxley, (1864) 15 C.B.(N.S.) 646, and again from the sameCourt in Meyer v. Dresser, (1864) 33 Law J. Rep. C.P. 289, where the rule was called "settled law". As a rule it has never been judicially doubtedor questioned or criticised; it has received the approval of authoritative textbooks. It could have been attacked, but was not, by eminent commercial counsel in Bede Steam Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Bunge y Born, (1927) 27 Ll.L.Rep. 410(incidentally a case of a time bar). It was reaffirmed after full consideration by the Court of Appeal in The Brede (
As to the argument from inconsistency with the rule prevailing in relation to the sale of goods, it is no part of the functions of this House, or the Judges, to alter a well established rule or, to put it more correctly, to say that a different rule is part of our law, for the sake of harmonisation with a rule operating ina different field-not unless there is an intrinsic case, I would say a strong case, for altering the former rule. To quote again from Lord Sumner:
Nor does it follow, in the case of a legal system such as ours, that a principle can be said to be truly a part of the law merely because it would be a more perfect expression of imperfect rules which, though imperfect, are well established and well defined.
To do thiswould be macro-architecture of the law and would be for a particular type ofreformer.
But beyondall this there is a decisive reason here why this House should not alter therule approved in The Brede by reversing it. That is that the parties in thiscase have, I think beyond doubt, contracted upon the basis and against thebackground that the established rule is against deduction.
Dilhorne勋爵，Simon勋爵，Salmon勋爵，Edmundd-Davies勋爵一致同意，驳回承租人上诉。其中Salmon勋爵在第341页判决书中补充说到，这种由法律大师如Baron Parke，Baron Alderson，Erle首席法官和Willes法官和Byles先生共同确定的法治已被普遍接受100多年，并且从未受到司法质疑。在Scrutton的原始版本和后续版本中，Carver，海上货物运输等方面得到证实。作为一法律规则，特别是一项商业法规，这种法规历经这么久，并且信奉了数千份运输合同，并且每天都在制定一项条款，规定合同应受英国法律管辖，现在不能在我们的法院受到成功的挑战。
This rule of law which was fathered by such masters of the law as Baron Parke, Baron Alderson, Chief Justice Erle and Mr.Justices Willes and Byles has been generally accepted for well over 100 yearsand never judicially questioned.It has been confirmed in the original and every succeeding edition of Scruttonon Charterparties and Carver, Carriage of Goods by Sea. It was adopted in Lord Atkinson's speech, with which Lord Macnaghten and Earl Loreburn, L.C.,concurred in Kish v. Taylor  A.C. 604, and recently by the Court of Appeal in The Brede  2 Lloyd's Rep. 333;  1 Q.B. 233. A rule of law, particularly a rule of commercial law which has stood so long and upon the faith of which many thousands of contracts of carriage have been made and are daily being made containing a provision that the contract shall be governed by the law of England, cannot now be successfully challenged in our Courts.
四、ColonialBank(Now Bank of Boston Connecticut ) v. European Grain & Shipping Ltd, ( TheDominique),(H.L.)  1 Lloyd's Rep.431案
16. Freightshall be prepaid within five days of signing and surrender of final bills of lading, full freight deemed to be earned on signing bills of lading,discountless and non-returnable, vessel and/or cargo lost or not lost and to be paid to [a named bank in the Piraeus].
Question (1): Accrual of owners' right to advance freight
Question (2): Effect of charter-party being terminated
Question (3): Set-off as between charterers and owners
Question (4): Set-off as between charterers and bank
本文只说明第三个问题，Question (3): Set-off as between charterers and owners。关于该问题，贵族院的Brandon of Oakbrook勋爵认为根据海上货物运输合同，如本案中的航次租船合同，运费是货方向出租人支付运费的货币代价。运费需支付的时间取决于合同的条款。它可以在卸货港交付货物时支付，在这种情况下，它被称为“运费”；或者可以在航次的早期阶段支付，例如在提单签字完成后，这种情况称为“预付运费”；或者其中的一部分可能在航次的早期阶段及余额在交货时支付。
Under acontract for the carriage of goods by sea, such as the voyage charter-party in the present case, freight is the monetary consideration payable by the cargo-owner to the shipowner for the carriage of the goods. The time when the freight is payable depends upon the terms of the contract. It may be payable on delivery of the goods at the port of discharge, in which case it is called "freight" without any qualifying epithet; or it may be payable at anearly stage of the voyage, such as on completion of the signing of bills oflading, in which case it is called "advance freight"; or part of itmay be payable at an early stage of the voyage and the balance on delivery.
It is a long established rule of English law, dating at least from the early part of the19th century, that a cargo-owner is not entitled to set up, as a defence to a claim for freight, damage suffered by him by reason of some breach of contractby the shipowner in relation to the carriage, causing for instance partial loss of or damage to the goods, but must enforce any right which he has in respect of such breach by a cross-claim. The effect of the rule before the coming into force of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, 1873-1875 was that a cargo-owner sued by a shipowner for freight could only recover his damage by bringing a separate cross-action against the shipowner; the effect of the rule since the coming into force of those Acts has been that the cargo-owner, instead of having to bring a separate cross-action, has been able (though not bound) toraise his cross-claim by way of counterclaim in the shipowner's action. The rule applies equally to freight payable on delivery of the goods and to advance freight payable at some earlier stage of the voyage.
Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵认为所提到的法治与许多其他国家普遍存在的法治不同，并且不时在各方面受到相当多的批评。然而，上诉法院在Henriksens Rederi A / S v. T.H.Z Rolimpex（The Brede）， 2Lloyd's Rep.333;  Q.B.233案中确认了该规则的继续存在，其中对较早的权威进行了充分审查。上诉法院的判决得到了本法院在Aries Tanker Corporation v.Total Transport Ltd.（The Aries） 1Lloyd's Rep 334;  1 W.L.R. 185案的一致通过。因此，有关规则（将从现在起称之为“抵扣规则”），无论其优点或缺点如何，都不容置疑。
The rule of law referred to differs from that prevailing in many other countries and has been subjected to a considerable amount of criticism in various quarters from time to time. The continued existence of the rule was, however, affirmed by theCourt of Appeal in Henriksens Rederi A/S v. T.H.Z. Rolimpex (The Brede), 2 Lloyd's Rep. 333;  Q.B. 233, in which the earlier authorities were fully examined. That decision of the Court of Appeal was unanimously approved by your Lordships' House in Aries Tanker Corporation v. Total Transport Ltd.(The Aries),  1 Lloyd's Rep. 334;  1 W.L.R. 185. It follows that the rule concerned (which I shall from now on call "the rule against deduction"), whatever its merits or demerits may be, is not open to challenge.
Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵认为在适用抵扣规则的所有情况下，直至并包括TheAries案在内，出租人所依赖的违反合同的行为都被认为是对货物索赔的抗辩是不可抵赖的违反行为，导致部分损失或货物损坏或交货延迟。因此，在A/ S Gunnstein＆Co.K / S v. Jensen（TheAlfa Nord）2 Lloyd's Rep.434案中，承租人声称有权扣除因出租人拖欠运费造成的损失，Roskill勋爵运用抵扣规则，在第436页判决书中说到：
We have to apply the well-established principle that there is no right of set-off for claims for damages for breach of charter,whether for loss of or damage to goods or for alleged failure to prosecute avoyage with reasonable dispatch or otherwise, against a claim for freight.
Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵认为Roskill勋爵在这段文字中使用的“或其他”一词，如果不在上下文中，可能涉及由于接受的拒绝而造成的损害索赔。然而，在Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵看来，Roskill勋爵并没有提出这种要求，而是指其他违反不可否认性质的合同。
Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵认为自1977年以来，针对抵扣规则已适用于与上述不同类型的非毁约性违约案件。在Cleobulos Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Intertanker Ltd. (TheCleon),  1 Lloyd's Rep. 586案中，上诉法院适用的规则是违反合同依赖的情况是船舶货物泵有问题，使船舶有必要离开一个卸货港并前往另一个卸货港。在Elena Shipping Ltd. v. Aidenfield Ltd. (The Elena),  1 Lloyd's Rep. 425案中，Steyn法官应用了一项规则，即所依赖的是一些货物处所不适用因为缺乏通风设施而构成违约。
Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵认为似乎并没有出现在19世纪任何一个适用抵扣规则的案件中，为了打破这种规则，援引了衡平法原则。在The Brede, 2 Lloyd's Rep. 333;  Q.B. 233案中，由上诉法院提出并驳回了基于少交货和货物损坏的衡平抵消方式的辩护。在The Aries, 1 Lloyd's Rep. 334;  1 W.L.R. 185案中，基于少交货，同样的辩护再次被提出并被本法院拒绝。然而，显而易见，在这两种情况下所依赖的违反合同又是一种非毁约性质的。因此，本案第一次提出了这样一个问题，即虽然关于非毁约的违反航次租船合同的索赔不能以抵消运费的方式作为辩护理由，关于这种合同毁约的索赔，如果被接受，是否可以这么做。
Brandon of Oakbrook勋爵认为经过对先例的分析后认为，承租人所认为的交叉诉讼不能作为合法抵消运费索赔的方式运作，正如之前指出的那样，基于非毁约违约的交叉诉讼，即货物短少。
There arecertain observations which I would make with regard to the passages from the speeches of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon of Glaisdale quoted above. First,the cross-claim of the charterers which they held could not operate as adefence by way of legal set-off to a claim for freight was, as I indicated earlier, a cross-claim based on a non-repudiatory breach of contract, namely,short delivery of cargo.
Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵认为，在TheAries案中，Wilberforce勋爵和Simonof Glaisdalein勋爵的陈词已经明确指出，如果出租人违反租船合同的行为具有非毁约的性质，如部分货物损失或损坏，则不会产生有利于承租人的衡平法足以覆盖既定的抵扣规则。本案中需决定问题是，如果出租人违反租船合同的行为具有毁约性，那么它是否确实会产生这种权益。
The speeches of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Simon of Glaisdalein The Aries make it clear that,when an owner's breach of charter-party is of a non-repudiatory character, such as partial loss of or damage to cargo, it does not give rise to an equity in favour of the charterers sufficient to override the established rule against deduction. The question for decision in the present case is whether, where anowner's breach of charter-party is of a repudiatory character, it does giverise to such an equity.
Once the three arguments discussed above are rejected, as I think on the grounds which Ihave given that they should be, it is possible to state a number of good reasons for holding that a repudiatory breach of a voyage charter-party is nomore capable of giving rise to a defence by way of equitable set-off than is a non-repudiatory breach.I shall set out those reasons shortly first and then develop them.The first reason is that a repudiatory breach of a charter-party by an owner does not necessarily cause more damage to a charterer than a non-repudiatorybreach; it may cause less. There is, therefore, no justification based on quantum of damage for applying the rule against deduction to the latter breachbut not to the former. The second reason is that the application of the rule against deduction only works to the ultimate disadvantage of a charterer whenthe owner's financial situation makes it impossible for a counterclaim to beenforced against him. That risk, however, exists whether the breach is repudiatory or non-repudiatory. The third reason lies in the manner in whichthe legislation has treated the premature termination of a voyage charter-partyby frustration.
For the reasons which I have given I would answer question (3) by saying that, if the owners had not assigned their right to freight to the bank, the charterers would not have been entitled to set off against such right the damage suffered by them as a result of the owners' repudiation of the charter-party.
I would, therefore, answer question (4) by saying that the charterers are no more entitled to rely on their counterclaim for damages as a defence by way of equitable set-off against the bank than they would have been entitled to rely on it, but for the assignment, against the owners.
Keith of Kinkel勋爵，Oliverof Aylmerton勋爵，Goffof Chieveley勋爵，Jaunceyof Tullichettle勋爵持一致意见，出租人上诉成功，承租人无权从运费中作任何抵扣。
在2017年的In the matter of schenker ltd v.Negocios Europa Ltd案中，高等法院的Moulder法官在第6段判决书中引援了The“Aries”案，Wilberforce勋爵的陈词，并归纳如下：
I was referred to the judgment of Lord Wilberforce at 337. Lord Wilberforce said:
"…a claim in respect of cargo cannot be asserted by way of deduction from the freight is a long established rule in English law. As a rule, it has never been judicially doubted or questioned or criticised. It has received the approval of authoritative text books. It is said to be an arbitrary rule and so it may be in the sense that no very clear justification for it has ever been stated but this does not affect its status in the law. It is said to be inconsistent with the rule laid down in relation to the sale of goods and contracts for work andthere are two answers to this. First, the two rules have been running in parallel for over a Century without difficulty.
"As the argument for inconsistency with the rule prevailing in relation to the sale ofgoods, it is no part of the functions of this House or the judges to alter awell established rule or, to put it more correctly, to say that a differentrule is part of our law for the sake of harmonisation with a rule operating in a different field.
"But beyond all this, there is a decisive reason here why this House should not alter the rule approved in The Brede by reversing it; that is that the parties in this case have, I think, beyond doubt contracted upon the basis and against the background that the established rule is against deduction."
I understand that my conclusion is one which the defendant will struggle to accept, given the fact that goods were not delivered within the time frame he specified and he does not see why he should pay for a service which he did not receive. However, this ruling does not affect his ability to bring a claima gainst the claimant for the failures which he says occurred. I note that the defendant had been given an opportunity to bring a counterclaim but for reasons which do not need to be recited in this judgment he was not in a position tobring a counterclaim prior to this matter being decided today. It is, however,still open to him to bring a claim should he choose to do so after this has been dealt with.
Accordingly,for all the reasons set out, I find that the common law freight rule which provides that there can be no set off against freight does extend to carriage by air.
The freighter will not be entitled to make deductions from the freight for the damage, but will have a separate cause of action for the damage unless caused solely by excepted perils or by the vice of the goods themselves.
最后，简单提一下关于运费的另外一个问题?；竦迷朔讶ɡ恼嬲曜际窃朔寻春贤Ц斗袷欠褚丫抵市月男械奈侍?；根据英格兰的法律，通常运费通过运输及抵达，准备就绪可交付给商人才赚取的，尽管货物在到达时可能处于受损状态。如果出租人未能将货物运送到目的地港口，则不能获得运费。如果他载运的是部分货物但不是全部货物，则无效支付未载运部分的运费，并且运费应就所运输的部分支付，除非租船合同将整个运输作为先决条件以获得任何运费，但在实践中所经历的并没有出现这种案例。对于此的解释可以参Willes法官在典型先例Dakin v Oxley (1864) 15 CBNS 647, 660 Courtof Common Pleas案中所作的陈述，如下：
It ought to be borne in mind, when dealing with such cases, that the true test of the right to freight is the question whether the service in respect of which the freight was contracted to be paid has been substantially performed; and, according to the law of England,as a rule, freight is earned by the carriage and arrival of the goods ready tobe delivered to the merchant, though they be in a damaged state when they arrive. If the shipowner fails to carry the goods for the merchant to the destined port, the freight is not earned. If he carry part, but not the whole,no freight is payable in respect of the part not carried, and freight is payable in respect of the part carried unless the charterparty make the carriage of the whole a condition precedent to the earning of any freight –acase which has not within our experience arisen in practice.
在VagresCia Maritima S.A. v. Nissho-Iwai (The “Karin Vatis”)  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 330案中，上诉院的Lloyd勋爵在第332页判决书中说到，在没有明示或暗示的相反规定的情况下，普通规则是，在货物交付或投标交付之前不需支付程租合同的运费。该规则反映在Gencon格式的租船合同和其他地方的印刷措辞中，并不取决于程租合同所特有的考虑因素。对于所有类型的合同来说，考虑是完整的。出租人承诺在合同目的地交付货物，如果他未能这样做，他无法赚取合同运费，其与船舶和货物是否被除外的危险导致灭失无关。
The ordinary rule, in the absence of express or implied provision to the contrary, is that freight under a voyage charter is not payable until the cargo is delivered or tendered for delivery. That rule, which is reflected in the language of the printed form of the Gencon charter-party and elsewhere, does not depend onconsiderations which are in any way peculiar to voyage charters. It is common to all types of contract where the consideration is entire. The shipowner promises to deliver the goods at the contractual destination. If he fails to doso he has failed to earn his contractual freight. It matters not that the vessel and cargo have been lost by an excepted peril.
13.2 In order to earn freight, the shipowner must, unless otherwise agreed, carry the cargo to the destination provided forin the charterparty and be ready to deliver it there. If he fails to deliverany cargo, no freight is payable; if he delivers part of the cargo loaded, itis payable only the part delivered.
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）