Why is the in rem a useful procedure in shipping disputes?
336062
WTF is "rem"-spell out the abbreviation...
692171
it is to do with shipping, and banking terms for a documentary letter of credit.
62942
I doubt it.  If it is, then I really need to leave this country.  Ridiculous.\n\nIf there is a dispute about something, it seems like this would provide good evidence about what was presented if you are registering a complaint with your college.  This seems like a college, not a legal issue.
140305
Why would it?  Security at US ports remains the responsibility of the US Coast Guard and US Customs and Border Protection.\n\nThe company previously running those ports is a British company.  DPW bought out the British company and the rights to the ports along with it.  Why does it matter where the profits go to?\n\nThey aren't in charge of security.  Repeat. They aren't in charge of security.
54233
They consider it a standard nursing procedure. Families of the person can actually sue if they do not swab before they stick.
1154209
This is similar to crimes committed on the high seas.  The first port of entry - or airport - that country would have jurisdiction over the  crime the crime that was committed.  If a plane flew from England to New York and a crime was committed in flight, New York would have jurisdiction over this matter after the plane landed.  Good question.
766401
The first fax (which, depending on local law, might be an unlawful spam-fax) was indeed an offer, but there is a catch: the quantity is not specified, neither is the timeframe. It is not an unconditional offer.\n\nThe second fax added two contract terms and so -- if the quantity and delivery terms were other than "normal" in the industry and under the circumstances -- was a counter-offer: 4,000 and "one load by Monday:.\n\nQuestion: what is "several"? And what warranty is there that the goods are, in fact, "suitable for [his] needs"? What building is going to buy bricks sight unseen and take the chance they will meet the standards of English Heritage and the planning board?\n\nThe third fax makes it clear there is no meeting of the minds, at least not yet. Some may argue otherwise, that "receiving our attention" means acceptance. I do not agree.\n\nIn real life, neither party has any recourse. This sort of stuff is common in the buildings trades. And neither party deserves particular consideration since both were ambiguous. Bill Derr should have assumed that the spam-fax might have been broadcast widely and that any purported acceptance was, itself, subject to prior sale.\n\nAnd, hey, building materials can be returned -- that's standard in the industry -- albeit with a handling charge of, say, 10%.\n\nIMHO. But whichever side you're on you're sure to find a solicitor to take your case.
1175411
A court will have to decide the issue if the parties refuse to settle the issue between themselves.\n\nGenerally, in order to prevail, a complainant has to prove the respondent was negligent.\n\nIt would seem to me that the parties should discuss the issue with each other, and if they cannot agree, engage a disinterested third party and present their cases to hiim/her. He/she will probably provide the same answer as a court.\n\nIt will save everyone a lot of time, money & aggravation.\n\nAnd, either relocate the offending tree or cut it down to avoid future disputes.\n\nHowever, if insurance companies are involved and are pursuing the matter, it is irrelevant what the parties do.\n\nGood luck.
283983
The big issue in the eBay v. MercExchange case is whether or not courts should automatically issue injunctions against patent infringers.\n\nThe law states that a court MAY issue an injunction against an infringer where infringement is found.  (An injunction is a court order saying that the infringer may no longer make/use/sell the infringing technology).  However, as a matter of practice, a court will automatically issue an injunction where infringement is found.\n\nSo the question is this... should eBay have to shut down it's entire site because one aspect of it infringes?\n\nEBay says no, that MercExchange should not be able to shut them down that easily.\n\nBig Pharma/Biotech is very interested in the outcome of this case because they rely on the ability to shut down infringers.
433890
person filing the case name is with held for safety reasons.
1018393
My apologies but I am such a 'right brain' thinker that this is the best that I could offer you...\n\nBut I appreciate you making me use my 'left brain' abilities!\n\nStandards for Certification (previously Certification Notes) are publications that contain principles, acceptance criteria and\npractical information related to the Society's consideration of objects, personnel, organizations, services and operations.\nStandards for Certification also apply as the basis for the issue of certificates and/or declarations that may not necessarily be\nrelated to classification.\nA list of Standards for Certification is found in the latest edition of the Pt.0 of the ”Rules for Classification of Ships”, and the\n”Rules for Classification of High Speed, Light Craft and Naval Surface Craft”.\nThe list of Standards for Certification is also included in the current “Classification Services – Publications” issued by the\nSociety, which is available on request. All publications may be ordered from the Society’s Web site http://exchange.dnv.com.
217688
Example:\nTaking goods from a dock with a counterfeit bill of lading.
1173610
Who would want to to take on the blame for redoing and expensive process?  If they can make a shorcut work most of the time, then they might figure it's worth it, especially if the client buys their excuse on ocassion.\n\nAnd if it's not the process, they certainly dont want to replace thousands of dollars of equipment.  Finger pointing often works.\n\nOne of many Murphy's Laws:  "An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance."
1146741
Well try a shippping term called "Grouppage" which means you can share a container with two or three merchants having small shipments similar to yours. \n\nAlso this can be studied better if you can specify your shipping origin and destination.
261849
INFORMATION SHEET\n\n \n\n                                                     MAIN ENGINE CASUALTIES\n\n                                                   Information Sheet Number 62P-206\n\n \n\n \n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n \n\n            Main engine casualties have a serious impact upon a ship's ability to complete its mission because they directly affect mobility by restricting or eliminating use of a shaft.  As casualties occur to the main engine, it is essential that prompt action be taken to minimize damage and restore propulsion as soon as possible.  A ship without propulsion is a sitting target.\n\n \n\n \n\nREFERENCES\n\n \n\n            (a)  Engineering Operational Casualty Control manuals\n\n            (b)  Damage Control, Engineering Casualty Control  NSTM Chapter 079 Vol III\n\n \n\nINFORMATION\n\n \n\nA.        MAIN ENGINE CASUALTIES\n\n \n\n            1.  Main engine casualties can be grouped broadly into three categories: those due to lube oil system problems, those due to main condenser problems and those due to a loss of steam pressure.  Even though grouped in different categories, the actions required for and affects from each are the same or similar.  The purpose of the actions for all casualties is to minimize damage and restore propulsion.\n\n \n\n                        a.  Lube oil system casualties are very serious because of the greater probability of extensive damage and expensive repairs.  If detected and corrected quickly, damage usually is avoided or minimized.  Although main engine bearing inspection or subsequent repair is a moderately expensive and time-consuming process, damage to a main engine turbine or reduction gear is far more costly and complicated to repair.  Lube oil system-related casualties include: loss of main engine lube oil pressure, hot or uncontrollable hot bearings (main engine, reduction gear and line shaft), and major lube oil leaks from the main engine.  Restoring normal lube oil pressure and flow as soon as possible is paramount.  Stopping and locking a shaft precludes use of the shaft and minimizes the extent of damage.  The procedures taken for all stop and lock casualties are the same and are covered in detail below.  Unless the engine can be restored to safe operation within five minutes after the shaft is stopped and locked, the rest of the engine, including the condenser must be secured.  (Although an unusual noise and vibration casualty may or may not be caused by the lube oil system, the procedures for stopping and locking for a metallic noise are identical to the lube oil system casualties that require stopping and locking of the shaft.)\n\n \n\n                        b.  The second group of procedures involves breaking main condenser vacuum.  If main condenser vacuum cannot be maintained or the shaft is idle and has not been or cannot be rotated within five minutes after stopping and locking, the engine must be secured and vacuum broken to place the engine in a safe condition.  These procedures are detailed below.\n\n \n\n                                    (1)  Main condenser casualties center around problems with vacuum and circulating water systems.  Without the main condenser vacuum to condense the steam from the turbines, the engine cannot be used.  It is important to note that in this type of casualty, one symptom can affect another, making it difficult to locate and correct the cause.  An example is that a malfunction of the thermostatic recirc valve causes the condensate, hotwell and air ejector condenser temperatures to increase.  This causes the vacuum to drop in both the air ejector condenser and main condenser.  Since the first indication of a problem usually is the drop in main condenser vacuum, investigating for the cause will reveal all these other symptoms which make identifying the actual cause very difficult.  \n\n \n\n                                    (2)  Main condenser casualties are either a  loss of main condenser vacuum or a "hot
568028
**************************************************************\nThe International Chamber of Commerce created Incoterms as a worldwide standard to be used in contracts of sale for expressing the rights and obligations of buyers and sellers – specifically, regarding the delivery of the goods. The list is in order of seller's obligation, from least to most. Some Incoterms are valid for any mode of transport (EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DDU, DDP), some for ocean only (FAS, FOB, CFR, CIF, DEQ).\n\nFCA – Free carrier\nThe seller delivers the goods, cleared for export, to the carrier selected by the buyer. The seller loads the goods if the carrier pickup is at the seller's premises. From that point, the buyer bears the costs and risks of moving the goods to destination.\n\nCPT – Carriage paid toý\nThe seller pays for moving the goods to destination. From the time the goods are transferred to the first carrier, the buyer bears the risks of loss or damage.\n\nDDU – Delivered duty unpaid\nThe seller delivers the goods - not cleared for import - to the buyer at destination. The seller bears all costs and risks of moving the goods to destination.\n\nEXW, FCA, FAS, FOB, CFR, CIF, CPT, CIP, DAF, DES, DEQ, DDU, & DDP. Incoterms are the official rules for the worldwide interpretation of trade terms developed under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, France. Incoterms are recognized by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law as the global standard for such interpretation.\n\nFound this in a search. Hope it helps.\n\n***********************************************************
966740
It's spitting, or as some less polite people call it, a pissing, contest between judges in different countries.\n\nThe classic cases are those of the late Freddie Laker, who was put out of business (Laker Airways) by the combined efforts (a conspiracy in restraint of trade) of all the main IATA translatlantic carriers.\n\nSir Lawrence Collins has written on this; and his Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 14th ed., just out, is probably the best source of information. That and some law review articles in the USA.\n\nBut I can refer you to some cases.\nhttp://www.uniset.ca/other/cs4/731F2d909.html\nhttp://tinyurl.com/v2whu\n\nThe point is that in anticipation of a RICO or an antitrust case, or even a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a (typically) European firm might seek an injunction against a US firm from bringing an action in the US that would impair the European firm's interests.\n\nThe US firm -- and perhaps the US judge -- could freely ignore the injunction, and there could be an endless series of opposing orders. In the end, comity might, or might not, end the conflict. Collins wrote an article on comity that was published in a Festschrfit: Comity in "Modern Private International Law, in Reform and Development of Private International Law Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North".\n\nHow much do you really want to know? I could write lots more; but suffice to say an anti-suit injunction is an effort to prevent someone presumably subject to the laws of one country from frustrating that country's public policy by bringing suit elsewhere. Typically in the USA. And, if such suit is brought and judgment issued, the policy might be to block the enforcement of that judgment: U.K. Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980, French law No. 80-538 of 6 July 1980, art. 273 of the Swiss Penal Code , the Mexican law “to protect trade and investment from foreign norms that contravene international law”, Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.