Great Deal! Get Instant $25 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

Discussion 3: Understanding Maritime Law View Topic View Topic in Reading View Subscribe Must post first. Read the following content: Legal Information Institute’s website on U.S.C. code - Carriage of...

1 answer below »

Discussion 3: Understanding Maritime Law

Must post first.

Read the following content:

  • Legal Information Institute’s website on U.S.C. code - Carriage of Goods by Sea
  • ITLOS webpage on theInternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
  • the case J. Gerber & Co. v. S.S. Sabine Howaldt on pages XXXXXXXXXX
  • Force Majeure - Clauses in Leases by the American Bar Association

Answer the following questions:

1) The J. Gerber case was about damage of steel being shipped from what country to the United States? Why does the Court of Appeals find that the ship owner is not responsible for the damage to the steel?

2) Which section of Chapter 28 of the US Code deals with ‘Rights and Immunities of Carrier and Ship’? In your words, what is the definition of ‘carrier’ under Chapter 28 of the United States Code? (quoted definitions will earn 0 points)

3) The President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is from what country? In your words, explain the function ofTribunal for the Law of the Sea.

4) In American jurisprudence Force Majeure includes not just acts of God but what else?

Support your answers using proper APA citation

Answered Same DayOct 30, 2019

Solution

David answered on Nov 30 2019
100 Votes
Answer One
In J Ge
er case, the shipping steel was coming from Antwerp, Belgium to Wilmington, Delaware and Alexandria, Virginia. The shipped steel got rusted and became almost worthless to use in any purpose. The Plaintiffs argued in the district court and court of appeals that it was the course of voyage through rough weather of Atlantic sea which caused this damage in steel. The sea water entered into the various holds of the ship, crossing the ship hatch and because of the waves of tidal length, the ventilators of the ship failed to restrict the water to shower on the covered steel. The court maintained the verdict that plaintiffs were not responsible for the damage in steel because it was an act of God, the natural calamity had damaged the steel and it could not be avoided. It was, by any means, not subjected to legal...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here