It was postulated that if a buyer accepted the documents and later validly rejected the goods, he might obtain a conditional property on tender of documents, which later re-vested in the seller. In The Delfini, the cargo-owners attempted unsuccessfully to argue this reasoning in reverse, "that the acceptance of the goods on delivery was conditional on the bills of lading proving to be in accordance with the contract: so that the property did not finally come to rest in Enichem until the bills of lading were available for inspection." This is a quote from Mustill L.J.’s judgment, who did not think the Kwei Tek reasoning could be adapted in this way.