The Choko Star (1990) CA A ship leaving Argentina became stranded on a river bed. The ship’s master (A) made a contract with salvers (T) to refloat the ship. The master purported to act on behalf of the shipowners (P1) and the cargo owners (P2), although neither party had expressly authorised him to act so. After they had refloated the ship, the salvers looked for payment from the shipowners and the cargo owners. The shipowners settled, but the cargo owners contended that they should not bear any of the cost of refloating the ship because the master had no authority to make the contract on their behalf. In particular, there was no agency of necessity because it was possible for the master to obtain instructions (see Springer v GWR, below, 2.1.2) from the cargo owners – something which he had not done. The salvers contended that, in the absence of agency of necessity, the master had actual implied authority to act. They relied on The Unique Mariner (1978), where the master of a ship that had run aground was held to have had implied actual authority to make a contract with salvers. As with the instant case, there was no necessity in The Unique Mariner because the master could get instructions from the owners.