所以，针对本段所讲的假设订约双方不会约定多余内容，Staughton大法官是不同意承租人的说法，说：
“… there was an implied term in the charter requiring the owners to comply with the charterers‘ voyage instructions without cl. 36; an implied term derived from cl. 36 would therefore be surplusage and the presumption against surplusage was of little value in the interpretation of commercial contracts; and without that presumption there was no basis on which to construe cl. 36 as giving the charterers the right to an indemnity for loss resulting from one particular breach of contract;”。
7 合约删除部分
在使用标准格式合约时，经常会有双方订约方去约定删除部分印本内容，原因会是有很多。其中一个原因是有了特定的附加条文去不同地对待同一个问题，所以删除掉的印本条文再也没有存在的价值了。另一个情况是订约双方不接受印本条文而去把它删除掉，但却没有其他附加条文去针对有关的问题而导致合约有漏洞。再另一个情况是双方认为删除掉的部分印本内容在该合约中没有什么作用。也会有情况是订约方没有太多地去考虑就将其删除。这就带来问题是这要否去在一并解释整份合约的时候加以考虑。例如删掉的部分是要其中一方承担某些责任，这一来去把它删掉，可否解释为双方约定不要这一方承担这些责任，变了是以印本内容的相反意思为准？这种争议不是没有，但很难会被接受，世界上的事情并不是非黑即白这么简单。
这一方面曾经有过不少权威说法，而且在大法官之间也是意见纷纷，不尽相同。但希望是这一方面问题会减少，一个原因是许多标准格式合约已经放到网上，例如像BIMCO的IDEA就有大部分的涉及航运标准格式合约，包括了经常被使用的金康租约或NYPE 46，可供订约方去根据谈判后达成的协议去直接在电脑的版本上重整然后去下载。这一来，标准格式合约中的印本条文如果被删除就根本不会在下载的合约中出现，不会需要再去像以前那样一去使用一份已经是在纸面印出来的标准格式合约，就肯定要去用尺与笔去把部分订约方认为不适用的内容划掉，顶多是删多删少的分别。
另一个原因会是现在解释合约强调的是订约时的背景/语境，包括去放开外来证据/口头证据。这一来，在谈判时去删除合约部分内容无可置疑是订约时的背景之一，没有理由不能去加以考虑并协助解释有含糊的明示条文/文字。分别只是在分量的轻重。
7.1 印本条文被删除是否可被解释为订约双方的订约意图是相反的地位之争
在The ―Golden Leader‖ (1980) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 573，已经有提到案情是涉及了著名的金康合约。它的标准格式内第2条文的第2段被订约双方删除，而该条文本来是对船东非常有保障，说明船东是不必对船长或船员的疏忽或过错所引起的任何损失或延误负责：
“And the Owners are responsible for no loss or damage or delay arising from any other cause whatsoever, even from the neglect or default of the Captain or crew or some other person employed by the Owners on board or ashore for whose acts they would, but for this clause, be responsible, or from unseaworthiness of the vessel on loading or commencement of the voyage or at any time whatsoever.”。
承租人代表大律师认为这一段被删除掉就代表了订约双方的意图是希望恢复在船长或船员疏忽或过错的情况，船东就要负责。这不被Lloyd大法官接受，说：
“relies on the deletion of the second the third paragraphs pf the printed clause, particularly the second which provides expressly that the owners should not be liable for the neglect or default of the captain or crew or some other person employed by the owners on board or ashore for whose acts they would, but for this clause, be responsible. The parties must, said [承租人大律师], have had some purpose in deleting that part of the clause. By deleting the express exclusion of negligence they must have intended to re-instate negligence as a ground of liability, at all events if the undeleted first paragraph is ambiguous.
I do not belong to the school of thought which regards it as inadmissible to look at deletions in a printed clause. Thus the use of a word or phrase in the deleted part of clause may throw light on the meaning of the same word or phrase in what remains of the clause: see The Dominator, [1959] 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 125; but it seems to me quite another thing to say that the deletion itself has contractual significance; or that by deleting a provision in a contract the parties must be deemed to have agreed the converse.”。
7.2 解释合约不应该去考虑删除部分的原因与说法
看来，认为不应该去考虑删除部分的原因有：
（一）解释合约是去看双方同意的内容，而不是去看没有同意的内容；
（二）去考虑删除部分与什么原因所造成就会去涉及了外来证据/口头证据，这在以前传统的做法是十分抗拒引入这些证据的；
（三）要去删除部分合约内容是一定会涉及标准格式合约，但订约方可以不去删除而去将标准格式合约重新整理后重打一遍（re-engross），这尤其是在电脑被普遍使用的今天更是举手之劳。这一来，根本就分不出什么是删除部分。
这里可去先介绍一些著名大法官的说法如下。例如早在Inglis v. Buttery (1878) 3 App. Cas. 552，Hatherlwy勋爵说：
“When I turn to the deleted words and find that in spite of a line being drawn through them I can read the words … it appears to me that, those words being deleted, and a material note affixed showing that they were deleted before the contract was finally concluded, it is not in
the power of any Court to look at the words, which have been so dealt with and absolutely taken out of the contract, for any purpose whatever connected with the construction of that contract of which they form no part whatsoever…. It is to my mind perfectly immaterial whether the instrument was torn up and rewritten, written out again with those words no longer contained in it, or whether the course was taken of running through those words as they stood in writing …”。
在同一个先例，O‘Hagan勋爵也说：
“When those words were removed from the paper which had presented the full contract between the parties, they ceased to exist to all intents and purposes; and whether it was possible, as in point of fact it was, still to read them, in consequence of their simply having a line drawn through them, or whether they had been absolutely obliterated appears to me not to make the smallest difference.”。
另在Ambatielos v. Anton Jurgens Margrine Works (1923) A.C. 175，Finlay子爵说： “… This charter was in a form which was in print. It was a great deal altered, words in print were struck out and words in writing were inserted; and it was said, in tracing the history of these alterations, that it made it improbable that the construction for which the respondents contended should be the true one. I think that all we have to do with is the charter as it finally stands; we must construe the clause with which we have to deal according to the form which the charter ultimately assumed …”。
在Sassoon (MA) & Sons Ltd v. International Banking Corp (1927) A.C. 711，Sumner子爵说：
“There is a good deal of authority, now old, about the effect of deleting word in a printed form of mercantile contract, which it is not now necessary to cite; but they [i.e. their Lordships] take it to be settled in such a case as this, that the effect is the same as if the deleted words had never formed part of the print at all.”。
7.3解释合约应该去考虑删除部分的原因与说法
但也有不少说法是可去一并考虑被删除的部分内容，特别是在剩下的明示部分内容有不明确的情况。这里也可去举一些先例的说法，如Esher M.R.勋爵在Baumvoll Manufactur von Scheibler v. Gilchrest & Co (1892) 1 Q.B. 253中所说的：
“We have a right to look at what is written in to the printed form and at what is struck out.”。
还有同样是Esher M.R.勋爵在Caffin v. Aldridge (1895) 2 Q.B. 648中说的：
“In order to see what it meant one must look at the rest of the document. We find that the
words ?full and complete‘ which were in the printed form, had been struck out. The plaintiff‘s counsel contends that, these words having been deliberately struck out, by necessary implication the Court must put them in again. I cannot agree with him.”。
该很早期的先例是涉及了一份程租合约，在标准格式合约中要求船舶去装一船满载的货物（a full and complete cargo），但其中“满载”（full and complete）这几个字被删除掉，剩下了只有“一船货物”。船东认为剩下的“一船货物”几个字还是表示要装满该船舶，但承租人说是这样去解释等于把双方订约时刻意去删除的几个字重新加入合约。上诉庭的多数同意去根据删除掉的几个字确定双方在订约时没有同意要去满载。
另一个著名的Scrutton大法官也曾在 ―Anastiassia‖ (Owners) v. Ugle-Export Charkow (1933) 46 Lloyd‘s Rep. 1这样说：
“… I am, of course, aware of the conflicting authorities as to whether you may look at clauses struck out of a printed form. I myself always do so, and I think the comparison between the original and the altered form frequently throws great light on what the parties intended by the words they used …”。
但Scrutton大法官的说法看来是不被上诉庭的其他两位大法官认同，Greer大法官在同一案例中说：“… I am not quite sure that I am of the same opinion as Lord Justice Scrutton with reference to the grounds upon which the judgments should be put …”。
接下去介绍是在Louis Dreyfus & Cie v. Parnaso Cia Naviera S.A. (1959) 1 Q.B. 498中，Diplock大法官持相同观点说：
“Where there is a standard form of words familiar to commercial men and contained in a printed form in general use … it seems unreal to suppose that then the contracting parties strike out a provision dealing with a specific matter, but retain other provisions, they intend to effect any alteration other than the exclusion of the words struck out. I cannot prima facie, at any rate, ascribe to them any intention of altering the meaning of the words in the provisions which they have chosen to retain. I say ?prima facie‘ because there may be added or substituted words which drive one to the conclusion that they did intend to ascribe to the words retained a meaning modified by the added or substituted provisions; but while I think that I must first look at the clause in its actual form, without the deleted word, if I find the clause ambiguous, I think that I am entitled to look at the deleted words to see if any assistance can be derived from them in solving the ambiguity, bearing in mind the prima facie rule I have indicated.”。
Cross勋爵在Mottram Consultants Ltd v. Sunley (Bernard) & Sons Ltd (1975) 2 Lloyd‘s Rep. 197中也说可以将删除部分当作订约时的背景一并加以考虑说：
“When the parties use a printed form and delete parts of it one can, in my opinion may regard to what has been deleted as part of the surrounding circumstances in the light of which one must construe that they have chose to leave in.”。
类似的说法也可见Reid勋爵在Timber Shipping Co S.A. v. London & Overseas Freighters Ltd (1972) A.C. 1中所说的：
“There is controversy as to whether one can ever look at deleted words in an agreement. If the words were first inserted by the draftsman of the agreement and then deleted before signature then I have no doubt that they must not be considered in construing the agreement. They are in the same position as any other preliminary suggestion put forward and rejected before the final agreement was made. But it appears to me that striking out words in a printed form is quite a different matter. The process of adapting a printed form to make it express the parties‘ intentions requires two things to be done. Those parts which are not to be part of the agreement are struck out and the words are inserted to complete the rest of the form so as to express the agreement. There is no inference that in striking out words the parties had second thoughts; the words struck out were never put there by the parties or any of them or by their draftsman.”
7.4 目前英国法律在这一方面的地位
英国法律目前的地位最权威的还是去节录《Chitty on Contracts》一书第29版，它怀疑法院能否可以去一并考虑删除部分，除了是为了去找出余下没有删除文字带来的疑点。它也说到了如果一个已经订立了的合约事后订约方同意删除部分内容，不论删除的是否是印本条文，这种删除就不一样了。这种删除更准确地应被称为合约更改（variation）。该书之12-069段是这样说：
“Alterations and deletions. Evidence of prior negotiations is normally not admissible to construe a written contract and drafts will not be admitted either to alter the language of the contract or to help in its interpretation. So, where an instrument appears to have been altered while the parties were negotiating, the court cannot look at it as it originally stood compared with the alterations which were made in it, to see whether those alterations will throw any light upon the question of intention. However, when the parties use a printed form, and delete parts of it, there is some authority for the view that regard may be paid to what has been deleted as part of the surrounding circumstances in the light of which the meaning of the words which they chose to leave in is to be ascertained. But there is weighty authority to the contrary. In any event, it is doubtful whether the court can look at the words deleted except to resolve an ambiguity in the words retained. The position may nevertheless be different where alterations are made to an already concluded agreement. In Punjab National Bank v. De Boinville (1992) 1 W.L.R. 1138 Staughton L.J. said: ?… if the parties to a