This case appears to indicate that the port must at the time of nomination be prospectively safe, that is to say it must be safe at the time of arrival. Thus it need not actually be safe at the time of nomination; nor need it be safe before arrival; at both times however it should be likely that it will be safe at the time of arrival. Conversely if at the time of the nomination the port is unsafe the charterer is in breach of his primary obligation to nominate a safe port. If between nomination and arrival the nominated port ceases to be prospectively safe the charterer is in breach of his secondary obligation to renominate another port itself prospectively safe. If the charterer provides for the nomination of a port or berth but is silent as to its safety, it may be considered that a warranty that the port(s) or berth(s) are safe will be implied. Whether a port is a safe port is in each question a question of fact and degree and must be determined with the reference to the particular ship concerned assuming that she is properly manned and equipped, and navigated and handled without negligence and in accordance with good seamanship. A port which would otherwise be unsafe may become safe if the charterer gives the owner sufficient warning of the dangers of the port to enable the vessel to avoid them. Dangers likely to be incurred on the voyage to the port may affect its safety and a port is not necessarily safe because at the moment when the vessel gets to it and in the weather then prevailing, she can get into it safely. A temporary condition of danger will not make a port unsafe provided that such condition will not last an unreasonable time.