The circumstances which give rise to a salvage award are so well settled in most countries that there is little need to give much thought to the juridical basis for that remuneration. The standard textbooks in the common law countries make reference to the Roman law origins of salvage, but it is not usually necessary in practice to become involved in technical theories. There still seems to be some disagreement in Continental writings about whether salvage is based on the concept of negotiorum gestio, or on some form of agreement or quasi-agreement. However, confusion sometimes occurs when the phrase “salvage agreement” is used, for it is often not made clear exactly what sort of relationship there is between the concepts of “salvage” and “contract”.

Kennedy stated somewhat generally that: “While the nature of the service or, in rare cases, the amount of its reward may be fixed by agreement, the right of the salvor is, essentially, independent of contract”.1 Brice is more precise: “Most salvage services are in practice rendered pursuant to an informal or formal salvage agreement or contract; but the existence of an agreement or contract is not, and never has been a prerequisite to the right to recover salvage if salvage services have in fact been performed without an agreement or contract”.2 Because it has never usually been necessary to assert a contract in order to obtain a salvage reward there has been comparatively little discussion of when (or if) an agreement to salve does result in a contract. Discussion of salvage agreements (particularly by non-lawyers) sometimes fails to make clear if an ordinary contract (with all the legal consequences) is being asserted.

There is an impression among some that an agreement such as the Lloyd’s Standard Form of Salvage Agreement (L.O.F.3) is a somewhat mystical document, perhaps coloured by the hazy images of the sea. It is perhaps surprising that there was not more theoretical discussion about the nature of salvage in England in the days when the law was practised and administered by those trained in the civil law (such as Dr Lushington). That the common lawyers, with their empirical training, would be less interested in theory is not so surprising. It was enough for them to know that, in