"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."

Moulder法官认为她的结论是被告很难接受的结论，因为货物没有在他指定的时间范围内交付，他不明白他为什么应该支付他没有收到的服务。但是，这项裁决并不影响他向索赔人索赔他所说的未能提供的能力。她注意到被告有机会提起反诉，但由于在这个判决中不需要背诵的理由，他无法在今天判决此事之前提出反诉。但是，如果在处理完毕后选择这样做，他仍然可以提出索赔。
      因此，出于所有列出的理由，她发现普通法运费规则规定不能抵扣运费，这一规定延伸到航空运输。

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.

      在《Scrutton onCharterparties》一书中也说到，运费支付者无权从运费中扣除损害赔偿，但将有单独的损害赔偿诉讼理由，除非由除外风险或货物本身的瑕疵造成。

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.

      基于这些权威，承租人想依赖衡平法抵销权从运费中作抵扣，将非常困难。但如果在合同中已经明确规定，货损货差索赔，延误索赔等等都可以从运费中作抵扣，那么这些抵扣将变成了合法抵扣，只要承租人证明了有索赔即可从运费中抵扣，而无需在支付出租人运费之后才采取诉讼手段反过来再找出租人追偿。

最后，简单提一下关于运费的另外一个问题。获得运费权利的真正标准是运费按合同支付服务是否已经实质性履行的问题；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”) [1988] 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。