Soru

Passage:
The ancient maritime doctrine of general average—the principle that all sea cargo stakeholders must proportionately share in any extraordinary sacrifice intentionally made to preserve the vessel and its remaining cargo from imminent peril—traces its lineage to the Mediterranean maritime customs codified in the Roman Digest as the Lex Rhodia de jactu (Rhodian Law of Jettison). Under the classical Rhodian rule, if cargo was deliberately cast overboard to lighten a distressed ship during a tempest, the loss did not fall solely upon the owner of the jettisoned goods; rather, the shipowner and the remaining cargo owners contributed proportionately to indemnify the victim based on the preserved net value of their property. However, the Rhodian doctrine strictly circumscribed the categories of qualifying sacrifice. It recognized only physical cargo actively jettisoned to avert catastrophic shipwreck, explicitly excluding incidental vessel damage, customary wear, or the voluntary cutting away of the vessel's own masts and tackle unless such structural sacrifice was executed in direct response to immediate mortal danger and endorsed by formal consultation with the merchant passengers.

By the late thirteenth century, the compilation of the Consolat de Mar (Consulate of the Sea) in Barcelona expanded and restructured these ancient conventions to accommodate the complex commercial realities of burgeoning Western Mediterranean trade networks. While preserving the foundational premise of proportionate mutual indemnity, the Consolat introduced three pivotal departures from Roman precedent. First, it formalized procedural governance by mandating that before any jettison could legally qualify as general average, the shipmaster was obligated to obtain the recorded consent of a majority of the merchants on board, or, in their absence, the consensus of the ship’s senior mariners. Second, unlike the Roman rule which calculated the contribution owed by surviving cargo based on its purchase price at the port of embarkation, the Consolat established a dual-valuation mechanism: if the vessel had completed more than half its voyage at the moment of peril, contributions were assessed against the estimated market value of the cargo at the destination port; if less than half, the goods were appraised according to their original acquisition cost. Third, the Consolat extended eligibility for contribution to include deliberate sacrifices of ship gear, such as severed cables and cut rigging, but expressly barred indemnity for any equipment that failed due to prior rot, overloading, or negligence in outfitting. Through these codifications, the Consolat transformed a rudimentary equitable doctrine into a sophisticated risk-allocation framework.

According to the passage, the Consolat de Mar differed from the classical Lex Rhodia in its method of calculating contribution values by doing which of the following?