一、Dakin v Oxley (1864) 15 CBNS 647案

      在该案中，承租人安排到Newport装载煤炭到Nassau卸，但是承租人声称货物遭受损坏，在抵达卸港的时候，价值已经低于运费。承租人于是声称，在这种情况下，作为一般海事法律，承租人有权将货物抛给出租人，并免除任何进一步责任。

法官Willes认为需要考虑的问题是，如果承租人的货物因船长和船员的过失而损坏，以至抵达卸货港的价值低于运费时，是否有权通过将货物抛给出租人免于支付运费。法官Willes认为不是，不应该花时间考虑这个问题，而是考虑到这个问题的普遍重要性，认为法律对这个问题保持沉默，并且认为这个诉求是由法律的使用和法律保证的其他海事国家，有人认为应该采纳。

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 .

法官Willes认为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。

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 . . .

法官Willes认为在抵达货物数量不足时应用上述标准方面存在小的困难。如果货物在没有任何部件损失或损坏的情况下意外膨胀，或者可能由于干燥而减少，运费（交易的使用除外）在发货的数量上支付，因为这是合同所指的。如果由于大量货物的海上损坏而导致货物实际损失或毁坏，则其中绝大部分货物仍然存在；因为如果垫子里的糖以每吨糖的形式装运并且付出如此多的代价，就会被冲走，所以只剩下几盎司，而且垫子是毫无价值的，因此实际上可能会出现这样的问题，无论是签约的货物的任何部分已经运抵。如果数量保持不变，但由于海上损坏，货物的质量已经下降，性质问题就会以不同的形式出现，例如，有价值的照片作为一块破损的帆布到达，衣服破损，或破碎碎片中的陶器，全部或几乎全部生锈的铁，米发酵或皮腐烂。

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.

法官Willes认为在这两类案例中，无论是数量损失还是质量变化，正确的过程似乎都是相同的，即根据合同条款确定，通过商业用法来解释（如果有的话），什么是支付运费，并由陪审团协助确定该物品或其中的物品是否实际运抵。如果它已经抵达，虽然损坏，运费应按照租约的一般条款支付；并且偶然损害的问题必须由承保人解决，并且在对船舶所有人或出租人的这种损害的独特程序中应当承担有罪的损害赔偿责任。明显的公正使得后一种损害可以被抵消或扣除在运费的诉讼中；这在一些（至少）美国帕森斯商业法中是允许的。但是法官Willes认为英国的法律不允许以这种形式进行扣除；而且，为了迅速结清运费和其他额定索赔要求，目前管理的方式只能通过交叉诉讼向受害方提供救济。这是不公正的，而且几乎是荒谬的是，不考虑货物和货物在不受损害的情况下的相对价值，商船冒险的风险抛给出租人在货物价值略高于运费；因此，比运费少得多的微不足道的损失将使价值减少到小于运费；而如果货物价值更高且损失更大，或者货物价值略低于运费和损失相同，以便在整体价值中占较大比例，则运费应该已经支付，商人已经不得不被迫进行交叉诉讼。然而，法官Willes认为这是被告要求他作出的有利于法官的结论，涉及到的不仅仅是损害，即使是有罪的，也可能导致损害整个货物的琐事，这违反了法律的公正原则，各方承担自己违约造成的损害，不再承担责任。