DOCSLIB.ORG

Admiralty Law: Carriage of Goods by the Sea Actquasi- Deviation-Sedco, Inc. V. Mv Strathewe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Admiralty Law: Carriage of Goods by the Sea Actquasi- Deviation-Sedco, Inc. V. Mv Strathewe NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law Volume 9 Number 2 VOLUME 9, NUMBERS 2 & 3, 1988 Article 11 1988 ADMIRALTY LAW: CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY THE SEA ACTQUASI- DEVIATION-SEDCO, INC. V. MV STRATHEWE Irwin Nack Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/ journal_of_international_and_comparative_law Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nack, Irwin (1988) "ADMIRALTY LAW: CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY THE SEA ACTQUASI- DEVIATION-SEDCO, INC. V. MV STRATHEWE," NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law: Vol. 9 : No. 2 , Article 11. Available at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/journal_of_international_and_comparative_law/vol9/iss2/ 11 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. COMMENT ADMIRALTY-LAW: CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY THE SEA ACT - QUASI-DEVIATION - SEDCO, INC. v. MIV STRATHEWE The concept of "deviation," as that term is used in the area of admiralty law, refers to a voluntary and unjustifiable departure by a carrier from its contracted voyage.' The law is well-settled, in both the United States and England, that such action by a shipowner renders him liable for any damages or losses to his cargo resulting from that deviation. Although at one time application of this doctrine was lim- ited to an actual geographical departure by a carrier from an agreed upon route, in recent years its use has been expanded to include vari- ous actions by a carrier which tend to expose his cargo to a greater risk of damage or loss.2 The confusion associated with this expansive appli- cation of the deviation doctrine and its relationship to the liability lim- itation provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of 19361 (COGSA) are reflected in the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Sedco, Inc. v. M/V 4 Strathewe. In June of 1982, Sedco, Inc. (Sedco) contracted with the British shipping line Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Ltd. ("P & 0") to ship eighteen packages of oil drilling equipment from Dubai, Saudi Arabia to Houston, Texas.5 The equipment was loaded on board the P & 0 vessel MIV Strathewe, which departed from Dubai in the early part of June." Soon after her departure, the Strathewe was requi- sitioned by the British Government for service in the Falkland Islands 1. The United States Supreme Court has defined deviation as a "voluntary departure without necessity from the regular and usual course of a voyage .... " Hostetter v. Park, 137 U.S. 30, 40 (1890); see also G. GILMORE & C. BLACK, LAW OF ADMIRALTY § 3-40, at 177 (2d ed. 1975). 2. See G. GILMORE & C. BLACK, supra note 1, § 3-41, at 182. 3. 46 U.S.C. §§ 1300-1315 (1982). 4. 800 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1986). 5. Id. at 29. 6. Id. N.Y.L. SCH. J. INT'L & COMP. L. [Vol. 9 War, in accordance with that country's war powers.7 In response to or- ders to discharge her present cargo at a convenient port, the ship pro- ceeded to Malta,8 which in addition to being on her course to Britain, was also on the course of another P & 0 vessel, the M/V Strathesk, en route to Houston, Texas.9 Sedco's cargo was offloaded by P & 0 at Malta on June 12th.10 In mid-July, Sedco's custom's broker in Houston twice inquired of P & 0 as to the estimated date of arrival of the cargo, and in both instances he was told the cargo would arrive aboard the M1 V Strathewe on August 24th.1 1 On August 4th, after a third inquiry as to the estimated arrival date, P & 0 informed Sedco's agent that the cargo had been discharged at Malta and reloaded on the M/V Strathesk which had departed on August 3rd.1 2 The Strathesk arrived in Houston on August 30th with only sixteen of Sedco's eighteen pack- ages.'" Although the Strathesk's shipping manifest stated that eighteen packages had been reloaded, only sixteen actually were. The other two packages were left on a pier in Malta and were not located until 1984, at which time they could only be sold by Sedco as salvage. 4 Sedco brought suit against P & 0 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 5 for the value of the lost cargo."" The claim asserted that the Strathewe's departure from its in- tended voyage and P & O's subsequent misrepresentations and post- discharge negligence in the handling of Sedco's cargo constituted an unreasonable deviation, thereby voiding COGSA's $500 per package li- ability limitation. 7 The district court held that P & O's failure to no- tify Sedco that its cargo had been offloaded at Malta, coupled with their erroneous representations that the cargo was still aboard the Strathewe when in fact it was still in Malta, and their inability to properly reload all eighteen packages amounted to an unreasonable 7. Id. 8. Id. The following message was received: "Your vessel Strathewe is required for service in connexion [sic] with the Falkland Islands Emergency. Request you instruct your master to proceed to Southampton at best speed discharging present cargo at a port convenient to you subject to minimum delay." Id. 9. Sedco, Inc. v. MN Strathewe, 630 F. Supp. 120, 121 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). 10. 800 F.2d at 29. 11. 630 F. Supp. at 121. 12. Sedco, Inc. v. M/V Strathewe, 800 F.2d 27, 29 (2d Cir. 1986). 13. Id. 14. Id. 15. Sedco, Inc. v. M/V Strathewe, 630 F. Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). 16. Id. at 122. Sedco had contracted to sell the lost drilling equipment for $350,000. The salvage value was $167,362.52; thus Sedco sought to recover $182,637.48. Id. 17. See 46 U.S.C. § 1304(5) (1982). 19881 SEDCO, INC. v. M/V STRATHEWE deviation, precluding P & O's reliance on the liability limitation. 8 On appeal, the Second Circuit, in an opinion which reflects the ambiguous application of the deviation doctrine, held that P & O's actions did not amount to an unreasonable deviation within the meaning of COGSA and thus P & O's liability was governed by the $500 per package limit imposed by COGSA. 9 Traditionally, carriers were held liable for all damages or losses to their cargo which were not the result of an act of God, the public en- emy, the fault of the shipper, or the inherent characteristics of the cargo. 20 This held true even absent negligence or fault on the part of the carrier."' The rationale behind this somewhat harsh rule was that the carrier was in sole possession and control of the cargo, thereby lending credence to fears that they might very well steal the goods which they were carrying.22 Moreover, such exclusive possession made it virtually impossible for a cargo owner to effectively prove the true cause of his loss.23 Thus, it was not necessary for shippers to assert a carrier's geographic deviation as a distinct basis of liability, since even non-deviating carriers were liable for cargo losses not attributable to one of the above-mentioned exceptions. 4 It was in response to this rule of "carriers as insurers" that shipowners began to insert various clauses and provisions into their bills of lading, which had the effect of con- tracting away their liability. 5 These clauses generally were held valid as "[p]rinciples of freedom of contract prevented courts from refusing 2' to enforce these stipulations." 18. 630 F. Supp. at 122. P & 0 also contended that pursuant to COGSA's "restraint of princes" defense, it was immune from liability. Under this defense, where a sovereign's assertion of control over a vessel is the proximate cause of the loss, the carrier will be relieved from liability. See Baker Castor Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of America, 157 F.2d 3, 4-5 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 800 (1946). Both courts here rejected this defense since P & O's activities, and not the British government's restraint, were the proximate cause of Sedco's loss. 630 F. Supp. at 121; Sedco, Inc. v. M/V Strathewe, 800 F.2d 27, 32- 33 (2d Cir. 1986). 19. 800 F.2d at 33. 20. See G. GILMORE & C. BLACK, supra note 1, § 3-22, at 139-40; see also Propeller Niagara v. Cordes, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 7, 23 (1859); Clark v. Barnwell, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 272, 282 (1851). Even where a loss was attributable to one of these common law excep- tions, a showing of fault or negligence on the carrier's part would result in imposition of liability upon the carrier. Id. 21. Sorkin, Changing Concepts of Liability, 17 FORUM 710 (1981). 22. See Forward v. Pittard, 99 Eng. Rep. 953 (K.B. 1785). 23. Id. 24. Friedell, The Deviating Ship, 32 HASTINGS L.J. 1535, 1537 (1981); see supra note 20 and accompanying text. 25. Friedell, supra note 24, at 1549. 26. Id. at 1537. N.Y.L. ScH. J. INT'L & COMP. L. [Vol. 9 One of the more common provisions inserted into bills of lading by carriers to limit their liability was the valuation clause, which stipu- lated the value of the cargo. Often fixed at $100 per package, these clauses were usually enforced under the theory that cargo owners had the opportunity to pay a higher price and declare a higher valuation." It was the widespread use of the valuation clauses and other liability limitation provisions during the nineteenth century from which the no- tion of deviation as a distinct basis of liability arose."8 With the introduction of steam powered vessels during the Indus- trial Revolution and England's traditional maritime history, it seemed inevitable that British ships would dominate the trans-atlantic ship- ping market.29 Thus, it was no surprise that British bills of lading gen- erally contained the most extreme liability limitation provisions." In the United States, where the use of these provisions was prevalent only among rail carriers, their validity was generally determined by state contract law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Force Majeure Weather Modeling by Dr
    Force Majeure Weather Modeling By Dr. Gui Ponce de Leon, PE, PMP, LEED AP, PMA Consultants LLC Darrell D. Field, PE, LEED AP, PMA Consultants LLC John M. Zann, PE, LEED AP, PMA Consultants LLC Abstract Although adverse weather has impacted construction since before the pyramids, and when unusually severe is typically only deserving of a time extension without compensation, weather issues continue to generate their fair share of disputes. Even if not disputed, all significant grass root construction projects face weather impact issues that the parties may wish to recognize on an ongoing basis. Existing weather modeling methods can be cumbersome, overly technical and resource intense. In searching for practical approaches, the authors have developed new methodologies for modeling force majeure weather that provide objective evaluation of adverse weather impacts, for forensic as well as contemporaneous applications. Guidance for calculating normal adverse weather and force majeure weather day losses is provided, with examples to illustrate the new concepts. The focus of this paper is on the technical aspects of normal adverse weather and force majeure weather as opposed to the legal aspects. I. Adverse Weather Construction is impacted by adverse weather, with the actual impact varying from project to project, the site location and the region. The greatest impacts of adverse weather are upon construction exposed to the elements, whether directly as in the case of earthwork, concrete, etc., or when working inside interior, non-conditioned spaces. Precipitation, high winds, cold and hot temperatures, high rates of snowfall, not to mention exceptional weather events (acts of God), can all adversely affect progress, the production rate of the workforce and worker productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • DWSRF Class Deviation for Water Rights
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF WATER NOV 2 6 201 9 MF:MORANDUM SUBJECT: Approval ofClass Deviation from the Regulatory Prohibition on the Use ofthe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to Purchase Water Rights FROM: Anita Maria Thompkins. Directorr ~vf._ j //~ Drinking Water Protection Divisio~ /i( tVZ,,1//4~ TO: Water Division Directors Regions I-X The Office ofGrants and Debarment has approved a class deviation from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) regulatory prohibition at 40 CFR 35.3520(e)(2) (see attached memo). The clnss deviation al lows fo r the use of DWSRF funds for the purchase of water rights. which supports mt:eting the public health protection objectives ofthe Safe Drinking Water Act. For this class deviation, the purchase of 'water rights' is defined as the monetary value ofthe right to use \Valer from a given source (e.g., a river, lake, aquifer) to supply drinking water to an existing population. The purchase of water rights could include, but is not limited to, the following: the payment for the transfer of water rights from one entity to another, the purchase ofgroundwater credits, the purchase of storage capacity in an existing raw water reservoir, or the purchase ofnewly created/newly available \\,1 ter rights. A DWSRF project must meet the criteria outlined in the attached document. --Policy and Technical r·mluationfor a DWSRF Class Deviation.for Purchase ofWater Rights'· to be covered under this class deviation. States choosing to use this class deviation for assistance agreements involving water rights should notify the ir EPA Regional Project Officer of their intent.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Win at Marine Cargo Claims: an English Perspective the Hague, Hague-Bisby and Hamburg Rules
    HOW TO WIN AT MARINE CARGO CLAIMS: AN ENGLISH PERSPECTIVE THE HAGUE, HAGUE-BISBY AND HAMBURG RULES Simon David Jones, English Solicitor Cozen O’Connor Tower 42, Level 27 25 Old Broad Street London, UK +44 (0) 20 7864 2000 [email protected] Atlanta Charlotte Cherry Hill Chicago Dallas Las Vegas* Los Angeles New York Newark Philadelphia San Diego San Francisco Seattle West Conshohocken Washington, DC Wilmington *Affiliated with the Law Offices of J. Goldberg & D. Grossman The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any current or former client of Cozen O'Connor. These materials are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should not act or rely on this material without seeking specific legal advice on matters which concern them. Copyright (c) 2001 Cozen O'Connor ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 HOW TO WIN AT MARINE CARGO CLAIMS : AN ENGLISH PERSPECTIVE THE HAGUE, HAGUE-VISBY AND HAMBURG RULES Background At English common law the parties to a contract of affreightment covered by a Bill of Lading or similar document had complete freedom to negotiate their own terms as had the parties to a charterparty. Abuse of the carriers’ stronger bargaining position during the 19th century led to extremely onerous terms being placed in Bills of Lading. The first attempt to redress the balance between the interests of ship and cargo came from the United States in the form of the Harter Act of 1893. It soon became clear to the major marine trading countries that a single Convention binding all contracting parties was preferable to a system of similar but not identical Acts.
    [Show full text]
  • Admiralty and Maritime Law
    BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND DISPUTES Admiralty and Maritime Law DELOS E. FLINT, JR., AND PATRICK O'KEEFE I. Introduction The year 1996 was marked by the lawyers, representing competing industry interests, getting together under the aegis of the Maritime Law Association and putting forth a proposed revision of COGSA, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The draft proposal is currently before Congress and is expected to be taken up sometime during 1997. A brief synopsis of the proposed amendments to COGSA is indicated here. Ultimately the changes are designed to bring American law more in line with those of our major trading partners. Also, during the past year, one Supreme Court case caused ripples in the legal community and several other significant Circuit Court decisions are presented. II. Proposed Amendments to COGSA The United States enacted the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act in 1936.' The statute embodied a 1924 international convention known as the Hague Rules.2 This convention, in turn, was modeled on a 1910 Canadian statute called the Water Carriage of Goods Act.' The Canadian law was itself modeled on the Harter Act passed by Congress in 1893.4 The Hague Rules were modified in 1968 by the Visby Protocol such that the Hague-Visby Rules are now in force in most of Western Europe, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and Canada.' In 1978 the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law completed revisions Delos E. Flint, Jr., of the law firm of Rice Fowler in New Orleans, Louisiana, is chair of the Admiralty and Maritime Law Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cruise Passengers' Rights & Remedies 2016
    PANEL SIX ADMIRALTY LAW: THE CRUISE PASSENGERS’ RIGHTS & REMEDIES 2016 245 246 ADMIRALTY LAW THE CRUISE PASSENGERS’ RIGHTS & REMEDIES 2016 Submitted By: HON. THOMAS A. DICKERSON Appellate Division, Second Department Brooklyn, NY 247 248 ADMIRALTY LAW THE CRUISE PASSENGERS’ RIGHTS & REMEDIES 2016 By Thomas A. Dickerson1 Introduction Thank you for inviting me to present on the Cruise Passengers’ Rights And Remedies 2016. For the last 40 years I have been writing about the travel consumer’s rights and remedies against airlines, cruise lines, rental car companies, taxis and ride sharing companies, hotels and resorts, tour operators, travel agents, informal travel promoters, and destination ground operators providing tours and excursions. My treatise, Travel Law, now 2,000 pages and first published in 1981, has been revised and updated 65 times, now at the rate of every 6 months. I have written over 400 legal articles and my weekly article on Travel Law is available worldwide on www.eturbonews.com Litigator During this 40 years, I spent 18 years as a consumer advocate specializing in prosecuting individual and class action cases on behalf of injured and victimized 1 Thomas A. Dickerson is an Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department of the New York State Supreme Court. Justice Dickerson is the author of Travel Law, Law Journal Press, 2016; Class Actions: The Law of 50 States, Law Journal Press, 2016; Article 9 [New York State Class Actions] of Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice CPLR, Lexis-Nexis (MB), 2016; Consumer Protection Chapter 111 in Commercial Litigation In New York State Courts: Fourth Edition (Robert L.
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Arrests in Practice 1 FOREWORD
    SHIP ARRESTS IN PRACTICE ELEVENTH EDITION 2018 A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO SHIP ARREST & RELEASE PROCEDURES IN 93 JURISDICTIONS WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE SHIPARRESTED.COM NETWORK Ship Arrests in Practice 1 FOREWORD Welcome to the eleventh edition of Ship Arrests in Practice. When first designing this publication, I never imagined it would come this far. It is a pleasure to announce that we now have 93 jurisdictions (six more than in the previous edition) examined under the questionnaire I drafted years ago. For more than a decade now, this publication has been circulated to many industry players. It is a very welcome guide for parties willing to arrest or release a ship worldwide: suppliers, owners, insurers, P&I Clubs, law firms, and banks are some of our day to day readers. Thanks are due to all of the members contributing to this year’s publication and my special thanks goes to the members of the Editorial Committee who, as busy as we all are, have taken the time to review the publication to make it the first-rate source that it is. The law is stated as of 15th of January 2018. Felipe Arizon Editorial Committee of the Shiparrested.com network: Richard Faint, Kelly Yap, Francisco Venetucci, George Chalos, Marc de Man, Abraham Stern, and Dr. Felipe Arizon N.B.: The information contained in this book is for general purposes, providing a brief overview of the requirements to arrest or release ships in the said jurisdictions. It does not contain any legal or professional advice. For a detailed synopsis, please contact the members’ law firm.
    [Show full text]
  • Force Majeure and Climate Change: What Is the New Normal?
    Force majeure and Climate Change: What is the new normal? Jocelyn L. Knoll and Shannon L. Bjorklund1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................2 I. THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................4 II. FORCE MAJEURE: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT .........................................................8 III. FORCE MAJEURE IN CONTRACTS ...................................................................................11 A. Defining the Force Majeure Event. ..............................................................................12 B. Additional Contractual Requirements: External Causation, Unavoidability and Notice 15 C. Judicially-Imposed Requirements. ...............................................................................18 1. Foreseeability. .................................................................................................18 2. Ultimate (or external) causation.....................................................................21 D. The Effect of Successfully Invoking a Contractual Force Majeure Provision ............25 E. Force Majeure in the Absence of a Specific Contractual Provision. ...........................25 IV. FORCE MAJEURE PROVISIONS IN STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS AND MANDATORY PROVISIONS FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS ......................................28 A. Standard Form Contracts .............................................................................................28
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of MARYLAND : : American Steamship Owners' Mutual : Protection and Inde
    Case 1:08-cv-02195-CCB Document 111 Filed 05/01/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : : American Steamship Owners’ Mutual : Protection and Indemnity Association, Inc. : : Civil No. CCB-08-2195 v. : IN ADMIRALTY : Dann Ocean Towing, Inc., et al. : : : MEMORANDUM This case arises out of a marine insurance contract between American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, Inc. (“American Club” or the “Club) and Dann Ocean Towing, Inc. and its subsidiary Dann Towing Company (collectively “DOT”). American Club has sued the defendants for breach of marine contract, and the defendants have counterclaimed for breach of the same contract. At issue is the timeliness of the parties’ claims and counterclaims and, specifically, whether the claims arising from the contract are governed by laches or the New York state statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that by virtue of the choice-of-law provision in the marine contract, the claims and counterclaims at issue are governed by New York’s six-year statute of limitations for contract actions. BACKGROUND The facts of this case have been recited in detail in the court’s previous rulings. See Steamship I, 2010 WL 3447651 (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2010), and Steamship II, 2011 WL 3471524 (D. Md. Aug. 8, 2011). In brief, American Club is a non-profit mutual protection and indemnity 1 Case 1:08-cv-02195-CCB Document 111 Filed 05/01/12 Page 2 of 9 association that provides marine insurance to ship owners, their managers, and charterers against third-party liabilities encountered in their commercial operation of vessels.
    [Show full text]
  • Navigating Supply Relationships in the Turbulent World of Coronavirus Disruption
    Navigating Supply Relationships In The Turbulent World Of Coronavirus Disruption by John T. Shapiro A FREEBORN & PETERS LLP WHITE PAPER ABOUT THIS WHITE PAPER Businesses throughout the globe that rely on or service supply chains are experiencing COVID-19’s disruptive impact. The altered marketplace should prompt your company to take proactive steps to manage the disruption to its supply relationships. This White Paper highlights key issues and strategies you can use to protect your company The ongoing COVID-19 (“coronavirus”) How should your company assess and and its supply relationships. pandemic is having an unprecedented manage supply relationships and navigate adverse impact on trade and commerce. existing and future disruption caused Businesses throughout the globe by the coronavirus? No one-size-fits- supply chain dynamics and experienced that rely on or service supply chains, all solution exists. But, a mix of three at helping to resolve disputes between whether simple or complex, domestic primary considerations will allow your supply partners. or international, are experiencing the company to better control its fortune pandemic’s disruptive effect. even where current-day realities render This White Paper highlights key issues for supply relationships uncertain and more use by your company’s team in protecting Purchasers and suppliers of goods and difficult to maintain and manage: the company and its supply relationships services are assessing their rights and 1. Understand your company’s existing in the turbulent global marketplace the obligations toward one another. In supply agreement rights and coronavirus pandemic has created. determining its strategy for addressing obligations disruptions, it is important for your 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revised Hague Rules on Bills of Lading
    Digital Commons @ Georgia Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 3-1-1977 The Revised Hague Rules on Bills of Lading Gabriel M. Wilner University of Georgia School of Law Repository Citation Gabriel M. Wilner, The Revised Hague Rules on Bills of Lading (1977), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/557 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. In what oinounfs fe a prafMMd ntm CenvMlleii fo rapfcM* fh« "Hcniw llufu/' fh« Unftod Noriem Commlsrien en Infer- notfonol iowr (UNCnRAL) hen Indudmd on AHMm (32) av- ffhoriifng porflM fo a confracf for fho corrfogo of goods fo pravldo for orJUiraflon of dlipirfos arising fhorofrom. Sfofos whicli bocomo porffos to fho Convonfion would bo roqirirod to ffiv9 9tf9Ct to such a confrocf• Tho proposod Convonflon glifos fho pUumfw much fho somo opfions wifh rupoci to olfhor fho /vdMal or fho wrblfrol forum. Thoso opfions os to locolo fond to favor fho dofonding parfy iisiially fho carWor. On fho ofhor hand, ilrfMo 33 abo pormlfs fho parffos to agroo on a localo offor a dbpirfo hcM orison, an arrongomonf which would probtaOf roflocf fho Inforosfs of fho pMnflff fiwuuiijr mo cm^go oirmrj* in aaainon, nio vomronnon pro- vltfos HMf fno good folfh purciMVor of a Biif of IcKfing issuod pursuanf to a confracf of carnago would nof oo hound h|f an arhlfraflon «groonionf hofwoon fho original parflos to fho confracf, unloss If appoarod In fho hill of lading Ifsolf.
    [Show full text]
  • Indicators of Sovereign Ideology
    Law Enforcement Sensitive Version 1 Indicators of Sovereign Ideology A Basic Guide for Law Enforcement This document serves as an aide for law enforcement and is intended to be used as a reference tool only. Law enforcement officials should develop independent probable cause when conducting investigations. Information presented is for situational awareness and is NOT indicative of criminal activity or threat of violence. Translation: Force of the County Bumper Stickers US Statute used to illustrate an individual is not a “corporate” citizen but an “American National” Uniform Commercial Code Flags and Insignias Republic of Alabama Flag RuSA present in Tennessee Distress Flag “Civil Flag” Moorish Sovereign Citizens Flags and Specific to Insignias Washitaw Prominent, but not limited to, the western region of Tennessee. This is a legitimate Common: Moorish Washitaw organizational “Moorish American flag. This has been National Government” used by individuals Mu’ur adhering to sovereign citizen ideology. Cherokee Country/Nation Cherokee Country Turtle Island Prominent in the eastern region of Tennessee. Logos on documentation to include driver license, vehicle registration or license plates. Common Turtle Island Cherokee Nation of Indians Cherokee Country Little Shell Law Enforcement Sensitive Law Enforcement Sensitive Posters and License Plates Version 1 Posters have been found taped to vehicle windows and at the entrance of property. Tags may infer diplomatic status Republic of Alabama License Plate Religious Symbols Religious symbols, specifically those of the Pope or Vatican, have been used due to their established sovereignty. This concept appeals to some sovereign ideologies in the United States, and formulates one of the foundations of their belief system.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Q&A: a Handbook for Government Contractors During The
    ESPONSE COVID-19 R COVID-19 Q&A: A Handbook for Government Contractors During the Coronavirus Pandemic Updated: April 21, 2020 UPDATE: This Handbook has been updated to add discussion and links for new guidance and memoranda issued by federal agencies. Updated Sections are shown with BLUE highlight. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for companies performing federal government contracts. The operating landscape is constantly shifting and the communication and directives from federal agencies and state and local governments are often vague and contradictory. In response to a flood of information, advisories, memoranda, and alerts, we put together the following topics in a question-and-answer format to provide simple answers addressing some of the pressing issues and questions we are seeing from industry. TOPICS DISCUSSED 1. RECENT GUIDANCE BY FEDERAL AGENCIES 2. THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AND DPAS RATED ORDERS 3. CONTRACTOR IMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT INDEMNITY 4. WORK SITE ACCESS ISSUES 5. FORCE MAJEURE, EXCUSABLE DELAYS, AND CHANGES 6. SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT 7. SUSPENSION OF WORK, STOP WORK ORDERS, TERMINATION 8. EMPLOYEE NOTIFICATION UNDER THE WARN ACT 9. COMMUNICATION WITH THE CUSTOMER 10. MAINTAINING DOCUMENTATION 1 1. Recent Guidance by Federal Agencies Q What guidance have federal agencies issued relating to COVID-19 and its impact on government contracts? Multiple federal agencies have issued memoranda regarding contract performance in the wake of COVID-19. The memoranda address agency expectations, and the Department of Defense (DoD) and civilian agency guidance differ slightly. Contractors should consider guidance specific to their customers, which include: Department of Defense, Implementation Guidance for Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, April 9, 2020 On April 8, 2020, DoD Defense Pricing and Contracting released guidance implementing Section 3610 of the CARES Act, Pub.
    [Show full text]