The Commercial Court held that, in general, a CIF seller’s obligation was only to nominate a carrying vessel, ship the goods, and not to take any active steps to impede delivery. It had no obligation to deliver to berth. It was for the Buyer to provide a safe berth and take steps to make the berth available. By construing the CIF contract in question in this way, the court held that, so long as the vessel could not reach the berth because of its unavailability, the master was entitled to give notice of readiness. This was so even if the tidal conditions were a concurrent cause preventing the vessel from reaching at the berth.