panish exporters of mandarin oranges shipped a cargo of them in the defendants' 被告人vessel in reliance on an oral promise by the shipowners' agent, made on or about November 20, 1947, that the vessel would go straight to London. It is therefore was assumed by the shippers that vessel will arrive at London before 30 November 1947. After loading the plaintiffs' cargo, the shipowners' agent issued to the shippers a bill of lading containing the following terms among others:
"Received for shipment in apparent good order and condition ... The owners are to be at liberty to carry the said goods to their port of destination ... proceeding by any route and whether directly or indirectly to such port, and in doing so to carry the goods beyond their port of destination, and so tranship or land and store the goods either on shore or afloat and reship and forward the same at the owners' expense but at merchant's risk ...".
Instead of sailing direct to London, the vessel went first to Antwerp, and arrived at the Port of London on December 4, 1947, and the goods were unloaded on December 5.
As a result, when the plaintiffs' cargo arrived in London, (a) there had been an increase in the import duty on mandarins, and (b) other cargoes of mandarins had arrived in London, with a consequent fall in the price of mandarins, all of which events would have taken place after the arrival of the defendants' vessel had she gone direct to London. The shippers claimed for damages.
The shipowner contended that the contract between the parties was the bill of lading, and their rights and liabilities are determined by what it contains. But