6ö Anlage G 



IL After discharge up 10 days, 

 over 10 days. 



4. Steamer leaves to return with Cargo to Europe, Assured 



refusing to give Instructions. 



5. Steamer leaves under Instructions from the Assured under new 



contract of affreightment. 



Opinion. London, May 12 lh 1904. 



Dear Sirs, 



re s/s 



We duly received your favour of the 4 th inst, with the enclosures 

 therein which we have perused. 



In our opinion the following is the answer to your friends suggestions. 



As we understand the steamer arrived at her destination, and there was 

 no physical obstacle to the goods being landed there but the discharge was 

 in fact delayed. * 



If this delay was (a) in order to avoid the risk of seizure by the 



if landed, seeing that the policy is warranted free from capture, seizure and 

 detention, we doubt whether the deviation would be justifiable in the absence 

 of a deviation clause in the policy, but as the policy does contain a devia- 

 tion clause, we think that would be sufficient to keep the assured covered 

 during the delay. 



If the delay was from cause (b) in order to serve as a hospital ship to 



accomodate fugitives and it emanated from the Government so 



that it was a command which those in charge were forced to obey, it would 

 perhaps not be a deviation and no extra premium would be necessary, but 

 if it were a deviation, it would be covered by the deviation clause. 



If the delay were (c) by order of the assured, that would clearly be a 

 deviation but it would, we think, be covered by the deviation clause. 



With regard to (2), if the steamer left under Orders from 



the assured to move to another place of greater safety to await deve- 

 lopments, it appears to us that this would be a movement made with a 

 view to avoid the risk of capture, seizure or detention etc., for wich the 

 U/Wrs. on this policy are not responsible and therefore it would be a 

 deviation and would be held covered under the deviation clause. 



(3). In the event of the steamer leaving to land the cargo 



at some other place, the question arises as to why she should do this. If 

 she did it because the port was blockaded or there was an interdict or some 

 other reason why it was impossible to discharge the vessel there, the U/Wrs. 

 would probably continue on the risk without extra premium until the goods 

 could be taken on to their destination after the blockade or interdict 

 had ceased. 



The assured is entitled to have the goods covered until they are 

 discharged at If on the other hand the goods could have been 



