[retcon]

I think that all the analysis I've found with a quick search isn't very helpful.

The seller had to sue to either obtain payment or void the contract or else spend energies and time pursuing payment by persuasion whilst the entire time granting the ostensible buyers a free call option on FOB Liverpool cotton. My cynical guess is that regardless of evidence of foreknowledge about the duplicate ship names, Lloyds Register [0] most certainly did exist and importantly was considerably more accessible from Liverpool than India. Seller's imperative wasn't recompense but prior to marketing the cargo and taking profit, obtaining title and clean hands. Why go to so much effort? Letters of credit access and costs issues that could have been affected by a impossible distance impedance to necessary restorative PR.

[0] https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/lloyds-regis...

Edit:.. evidence of foreknowledge..