Shut yo skin tone chicken bone google chrome no home flip phone disowned ice cream cone garden gnome extra chromosome metronome dimmadome genome full blown monochrome student loan indiana jones overgrown flintstone x and y hormone friend zone sylvester st PDF

Preview

Summary

Fun fact: IQ can go negative because it follows a Gaussian distribution. The probability of a random person having a negative IQ is 1.308 x 10-11, assuming you use an IQ model that uses 100 as the mean and 15 as the standard deviation (many IQ tests use different scales). In a group of about 77 bill...

Description

There are 5 main differences between towage and salvage, namely 1. No need for a contract 2. No need for success 3. Absence of a lien 4. Danger 5. Voluntariness In regards to the need for a contract, Although there is nothing to prevent one vessel gratuitously giving another a tow, the right of a tug or other towing vessel to payment always depends on contract whether express or implied. This is not the case with salvage, which does not depend on contract and indeed may be rewarded even though the master of the salved vessel has expressly declined the offer of assistance, which the salvor goes on to give anyway, given that the services must have been executed in circumstances such that they should have been accepted. Next, the need for success is a characteristic of salvage, but not of towage. It is a necessary element of a salvage claim because salvage awards are paid out of, and cannot exceed, the value of the salved property. This is not to say that the tugowner will always be able to claim payment when the towage is not completed, because towage contracts are normally regarded as indivisible and the price only becomes payable when the towage has been completed. But the right to payment will depend on the construction of the contract rather than the success of the venture. While for the absence of lien, there is no maritime lien upon the tow for the payment of the price fixed by the towage contract whereas a tugowner has a maritime lien over property salved. A further distinction is the element of danger. While a situation of danger does not preclude a mere towage contract, the element of danger is crucial to a successful salvage claim.There can be no clear rule as to the exact amount of danger that will, in any particular case, suffice. The danger need not be imminent. It is sufficient if there is a state of difficulty and a reasonable apprehension of danger. A danger which is merely fanciful is not enough, but the state of mind of those on board the vessel in danger is a very important factor. So in the case of The Smaragd a salvage award was made after the crew of the casualty abandoned her in the mistaken belief that she was about to blow up. This is not to say that the state of mind of those on board is decisive. The test is objective. Kennedy in his Law of Salvage says that “There must be such reasonable, present apprehension of danger that, in order to escape or avoid the danger, no reasonably prudent and skilful person in charge of the venture would refuse a salvor’s help if it were offered to him upon the condition of his paying a salvage reward.” The salvage services last for so long as the master acts reasonably for the combined benefit of ship and cargo. As in the case of The Troilus where a vessel was taken in tow, having lost her propeller, and towed to Aden and then via Suez and Egypt to the United Kingdom, the whole of the services were salvage, even though she could have laid in physical safety at any of those ports en route because at none of them could she have had her propeller replaced in safety.

For the last point, The requirement that the services rendered must be of a voluntary character has been an obstacle to several categories of claimant, amongst them tug owners. It is important to note that “voluntariness” in this context, basically means that the service should not be rendered solely under a pre-existing contractual or official duty owed to the owner of the salved property, or solely in the interest of self preservation. As far as towage is concerned, Art. 4 of the Brussels Convention on Salvage 1910 provides as follows: “A tug has no right to remuneration for assistance to or salvage of the vessel she is towing or of the vessel’s cargo, except where she has rendered exceptional services which cannot be considered as rendered in fulfilment of the contract of towage". Similarly, Article 17 of the 1989 Salvage Convention provides that: “No payment is due under the provisions of this Convention unless the services rendered exceed what can be reasonably considered as due performance of a contract entered into before the danger arose”. The rationale for this rule is that the tug performing a contract of towage has a duty to fulfill her engagement and this includes the duty to remain by the tow in circumstances of danger and to render such assistance as would be fair and reasonable to expect without running undue risks to tug and crew. But, towage can turn into salvage as seen in the case of The Minnehaha, of which showed that the tug does not undertake to perform her obligations under the contract “under all circumstances and at all hazards”: But if in the discharge of this task, by sudden violence of wind or waves, or other accidents, the ship in tow is placed in danger, and the towing vessel incurs risks and performs duties which were not within the scope of her original engagement, she is entitled to additional remuneration for additional services if the ship be saved, and may claim as a salvor, instead of being restricted to the sum stipulated to be paid for mere towage. In the cases on this subject, the towage contract is generally superseded by the right to salvage....