For reference purpose only.

1. Differences between towage and salvage
I. Need for a contract
II. No need for success
III. Absence of a lien
IV. Danger
V. Voluntariness
I. Need for a contract
Although there is nothing to prevent one vessel gratuitously giving another a tow, the right of
a tug or other towing vessel to payment always depends on contract whether express or
implied.
This is not the case with salvage, which does not depend on contract and indeed may be
rewarded even though the master of the salved vessel has expressly declined the offer of
assistance, which the salvor goes on to give anyway (but the services must have been
executed in circumstances such that they should have been accepted. See The Auguste
Legembre [1902]; The Flore (1929))
II. No need for success
The need for success is a characteristic of salvage, but not of towage.
It is a necessary element of a salvage claim because salvage awards are paid out of, and
cannot exceed, the value of the salved property. This is not to say that the tugowner will
always be able to claim payment when the towage is not completed, because towage
contracts are normally regarded as indivisible and the price only becomes payable when the
towage has been completed.
But the right to payment will depend on the construction of the contract rather than the
success of the venture.
III. Absence of lien
There is no maritime lien upon the tow for the payment of the price fixed by the towage
contract whereas a tugowner has a maritime lien over property salved.
IV. Danger
A further distinction is the element of danger. While a situation of danger does not preclude a
mere towage contract, the element of danger is crucial to a successful salvage claim.
There can be no clear rule as to the exact amount of danger that will, in any particular case,
suffice. The danger need not be imminent. It is sufficient if there is a state of difficulty and a
reasonable apprehension of danger.

2. A danger which is merely fanciful is not enough, but the state of mind of those on board the
vessel in danger is a very important factor. So in the case of The Smaragd (1927) a salvage
award was made after the crew of the casualty abandoned her in the mistaken belief that she
was about to blow up.
This is not to say that the state of mind of those on board is decisive. The test is objective.
Kennedy (Law of Salvage) says that “There must be such reasonable, present apprehension
of danger that, in order to escape or avoid the danger, no reasonably prudent and skilful
person in charge of the venture would refuse a salvor’s help if it were offered to him upon the
condition of his paying a salvage reward.”
The salvage services last for so long as the master acts reasonably for the combined benefit
of ship and cargo. So in the case of The Troilus [1951] where a vessel was taken in tow,
having lost her propeller, and towed to Aden (Yemen) and thence via Suez and Port Said
(Egypt) to the United Kingdom, the whole of the services were salvage, even though she
could have laid in physical safety at any of those ports en route because at none of them
could she have had her propeller replaced in safety.
V. Voluntariness
The requirement that the services rendered must be of a voluntary character has been an
obstacle to several categories of claimant, amongst them tug owners.
It is important to note that “voluntariness” in this context, basically means that the service
should not be rendered solely under a pre-existing contractual or official duty owed to the
owner of the salved property, or solely in the interest of self preservation.
As far as towage is concerned, Art. 4 of the Brussels Convention on Salvage 1910
provides as follows:
“A tug has no right to remuneration for assistance to or salvage of the vessel she is towing or
of the vessel’s cargo, except where she has rendered exceptional services which cannot be
considered as rendered in fulfilment of the contract of towage".