Knight J:

In this suit the plaintiffs claim $6,190 from the defendants being the difference in value between 500 coils of galvanised wire in good condition and its actual value on delivery to them, when in a damaged condition, on 7 November 1952.The sum claimed includes $40 for survey fees.

The defendant Company, which is the local branch of the Company which owns the ship SS Magdala, admits the shipment of 500 coils of wire in Antwerp on board their ship on or about 29 September 1952, and admits further having agreed to carry the wire to Singapore subject to the terms and conditions set out in a bill of lading of that date.After the hearing began, the defendants made further admissions and it has now been established that at the time of delivery to the Singapore Harbour Board at the end of the voyage, the wire was in a rusty condition, which had been occasioned by its having come into contact at some stage, with salt water.The facts of this case thus, are simple; the manner in which the cargo came to be damaged is not in dispute - nor is the quantum of damages.

The plaintiffs base their case on two grounds (1) that the cargo was shipped on a clean bill of lading (which is admitted by the defendants) in which it was stated to have been shipped "in apparent good order and condition" and the defendants are thus estopped from seeking to prove its condition to have been otherwise and (2) that although unable to prove when, and in what circumstances, the wire came into contact with salt water, this must have happened between the dates of delivery and discharge and negligence by the shippers must be inferred under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The defendants maintain that it was utterly impossible for the cargo to have come into contact with salt water whilst it was in their hands and although it was shipped on a clean bill of lading, the wire had an inherent defect in it when delivered to the ship and that defect could not have been ascertained by ordinary visual examination.The defendants suggest that in all probability the wire was either immersed in salt water, or splashed with it, as it was being carried out by lighter to the Magdala (when she was being loaded in Antwerp) and that during the voyage to Singapore the salt water corroded the coils of wire which subsequently arrived in a rusty condition.

As to the estoppel contention it is admitted that a statement of fact was made and I have no doubt that although the plaintiffs paid for the shipping documents before they saw the bill of lading they or their agents in Paris relied upon it and consequently acted upon the representation contained in it, to their detriment.The defendants, in my opinion, are thus estopped from denying that the cargo was not in apparent good order and condition.Further as the Magdala accepted the cargo unwrapped before giving a clean bill of lading the defendants are similarly estopped from maintaining that it was insufficiently packed or protected. A much more difficult point arises, however, as to whether the defendants are estopped from pleading that there was an inherent defect, quality or vice in the goods i.e. claiming immunity under Art. IV (2)(m) of the Rules of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924.This point arose in Silver v. Ocean Steamship Co. [1930] 1 KB 416 and although it was not found necessary to decide it, Greer LJ said (at p. 432):

I doubt very much whether the statement "shipped in apparent good order and condition" has any reference to original defects of quality or type.The words seem to me to refer rather to acquired damage or defect in goods rather than to original defects of quality or type ... I am inclined to think that the words are confined to deterioration or damage which has occurred to the quality and type delivered.

With all respect I agree with this opinion.Quite obviously it would be impossible for a ship's officer on receiving unwrapped cargo to give it more than a careful visual examination.If he had to