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.

最终，Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵对于第三个问题的答复为，如果出租人未转让他们对运费的权利给银行，那么承租人将无权从运费中抵扣他们遭受的损害作为出租人对租船合同毁约的结果。

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.

对于第四个问题，Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵认为承租人也没有权利针对银行依赖他们对损害赔偿的反诉，借助衡平抵销作为辩护。

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。

     本案是涉及到出租人已经毁约的情况下，索赔是否可从运费中抵扣的问题，但是贵族院大法官仍然一直认为，这些权威是不容置疑的，承租人无权从运费中作抵扣。

总结：

众所周知，英国乃判例法国家，虽然******法院的法官不会去指责或指导下级法院的如何判案，但这些******法院的判决，对高等法院和上诉院等都有约束力。关于是否可从运费中抵扣的问题，在这些******法院的判例中给出了一致意见，而这些权威是不容置疑的，不可挑战。

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 s