P was buying goods from D which it needed to sell on, and therefore needed a special “declaration” from D that the contract stated would be sent “as soon as possible after the ship sets sail”. The declaration only came v. late after P had failed to say anything, since it was trying to hold the deal together. However, in absence of the declaration it was unable to sell on the produce and refused to buy when the sellers arrived with the stock. The court (Goff J) ruled that the declaration was an essential part of the deal, that P’s lack of protest did not constitute a waiver of their rights and therefore that D was in breach. There was “no unequivocal representation” by P that they did not intend to keep their strict legal rights.