part 1 assignment
Complete “Managerial Implications” from each chapter covered this week.
part 2 make a comment
1.The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”) is a statute prevalent in the United States that governs the entitlements, obligations and responsibilities shouldered by both ship-owners and shippers of cargo pertaining to the shipments by sea to and from the United States of America. It is an enactment by the United States of the International Convention Regarding Bills of Lading, which is also popularly known as the “Hague Rules”. A carrier is free from any liability arising from the damage caused to the goods being shipped if it can prove that the damage was not caused by the carrier and can substantiate the cause of the loss. A carrier is liable if it does not take adequate steps to ensure that the vessel is seaworthy prior to departure. In situations such as damage due to act of war, labor strike, hazards at sea, legal seizure, fire, civil unrest such as riot, mistakes at navigation etc, a carrier is not liable.
2.The Nautical Liability of the Carrier refers to the process of establishing the carriers liability. A carrier is expected to take all the legal steps before beginning the voyage. However, the carrier is protected from any claim that arises due to storms, fire, ship management and navigation. In this perspective, a shipper is required to prove that the goods were loaded right and that they were in the best condition at the time of loading but were delivered in a bad condition.
Some mandatory requirements include; having a written notice of damage before receiving the goods or at the time. If the damage is not visible, the written notice should be provided 3 days from delivery and the claim should be filed within 12 months. As such, the carrier is liable if any legal steps are not taken to ensure that the ship is seaworthy (Schaffer, Agusti, Dhoodge, & Earle, 2015). Other scenarios where the carrier is not viable include legal seizure, riots, labor strikes, act or war, and perils of sea. Furthermore, the carrier is free of liability if he or she can prove that the damage was not their fault. COGSA liability per package is limited to $500 unless the shipper pays a higher value.
3.The relationship between NAFTA Implementation Act and the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause is very interesting because there the US Constitutions’ Treaty Clause does not mention about who has the power to end or withdraw from any agreements. Although it gives the US President the power over treaties, it does not talk about the power over agreements. However, because NAFTA is an agreement between three different countries, it is not clear for the US government to take steps to get out from this agreement. Another contradiction is that NAFTA requires all its member states to adopt rules and abide by its general principles of non-discrimination when exercising governmental authority; however, there is no law stating about the authority over such agreement in the US Constitution that the problem may arise when any disagreement occur between the US government and NAFTA.
4.NAFTA is an agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The agreement provides a regulation for free trade between the three countries. The interaction between NAFTA and the US treaty is based on the legal binds that the agreement creates. For example, for the United States to exit or stop being a member state of the NAFTA agreement, the president of the United States must receive a notice from the other two presidents. The notices should be given six months prior to the exit. Furthermore, the president alone cannot make the decision to exit.
Indeed, a contradiction exists between NAFTA Implementation Act and the U.S Constitutions Treaty Clause. NAFTA on one hand, is a three-country agreement which is negotiated by the member states and has been in existence since 1994 (Schaffer, Agusti, Dhoodge, & Earle, 2015). The U.S Constitution Treaty Clause empowers the United States President to propose or chiefly negotiate agreements, which should be confirmed by the Senate. In this perspective, I believe that NAFTA has a wider reach thus making it more significant.
Hi there! Click one of our representatives below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.