The popular belief that a Salvor becomes the owner of the property, at least if it has been abandoned by the owner or if it is dilapidated, is false. The owner can always recover his property from the Salvor if he pays the salvage money. For its part, the Salvor has a maritime right on the salty land (in a quantity determined by national law or legal mores) and does not have to return the property to the owner until its claim is satisfied or until the guarantee is given to complete a distinction. An owner who chooses not to reclaim his property cannot be held responsible for a salvage reward. Many recovery works are carried out as part of professional salvoirs. Normally, these salpars get nothing unless the recovery is successful to some extent. It is up to the Tribunal to assess the existence and extent of the present and future danger. The Troilus case (1951 1 Lloyd`s Rep. 467, HL) illustrates the notion of future danger that the Tribunal must consider in determining the existence of a hazard. In this particular case, the cargo owners stated that the vessel was in absolute safety when it arrived in Aden and therefore it was a shipping, but not a salvage when towing from Aden to Great Britain. The Tribunal found that, although the vessel and cargo were in physical safety, the services provided to the rescue service on the grounds that the master of a damaged vessel must do his best to obtain the vessel and cargo and bring them to their destination as cheap and efficient as possible.

The rescue premium was appropriate as long as the master acted reasonably for the benefit of the vessel and cargo. An existing agreement refers to any agreement reached before the date of existence of a risk. These include ship captains and crews who have already entered into an employment contract with shipowners. They have a duty to receive the ship and the cargo and, therefore, in case of difficulties, they cannot turn into salvoirs. On the other hand, with full coverage, the loss would be fully paid for. Insurers, if they exist, become the absolute owners of the recovery, and the entire proceeds of the sale belong to them, even if the proceeds may be greater than the amount of the debt paid. There are significant differences between the above contracts. With the exception of the Beijing Form (CMAC 1994), “No Cure-No Pay” is the basic principle that is shared by national forms, and the term is printed on the surface of most documents.

In practice, MARSALV is usually signed after a successful rescue operation. This is because its conditions can hardly be agreed in advance, especially if the danger is acute. Unlike the LOF, JSE 91 rewards the costs it incurred instead of the total value of the salted property. Overall, the above-mentioned contracts are not very common, with the exception of the Japanese form JSE 91. Non-marine policies generally prohibit the insured`s task and claim total damages. However, insurers may, in appropriate circumstances, waive this condition if warranted. If z.B. a ship sinks and is considered too expensive for recovery, it can be declared abandoned. The insurer could then assert ownership and recovery rights on the sinking vessel. The LOF is simple and simple, allowing the parties to quickly reach an agreement on contractual terms when a vessel is in distress.