Changes

'''Comment'''

The judgment of this court depended heavily on the factual evidence, in particular the fact that Xiamen identified itself in the LOI as the party to whom the Cargo should be delivered. The interesting feature of this judgment arises from the court’s alternative reasoning that it would suffice for the owners to hold an honest belief that the discharge agent was acting on behalf of the person named in the LOI. Since, on the facts of this case, it was quite clear that such belief was reasonable and honest, the court did not have to address the issue whether there is an additional requirement that such belief must not be arbitrary, capricious or irrational. This will have to be dealt with by the courts in the future.