To define a legal term, enter a word or phrase below. Are both correct? Are both more natural/common in legal language? Best wishes! Your loved ones are your family members. Legislative history shows that in passing the takeover, Congress intended not only to contain and quickly eliminate leaks, but also to prevent leaks from occurring in the first place by using heavy financial consequences to encourage responsible parties to take all available precautions. To give effect to this objective, Congress intended to restrict the third party defense to „prevent defendants from evading liability by claiming that a third party was liable if that third party had a contractual relationship with the defendant and essentially acted as an extension of the defendant.“ On appeal, the Fifth Judicial District recognized that „the meaning of Section 2703(a)(3) `in connection with` language is a matter of first impression.“ He confirmed that „In conjunction with“. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20connection%20with. Retrieved 22 October 2022. To raise a third-party defence, the responsible party must also prove that it „exercised due diligence with respect to the oil in question“ and took „precautions against the foreseeable acts or omissions“ of the third party. The District Court found that DRD was a third party whose acts or omissions were „related to a contractual relationship“, ACL could not rely on third-party defense of the takeover and ordered ACL to pay $20 million to the U.S. government.
These words are used to refer to people or connections between people. In 2014, the U.S. government subsequently sued DRD and ACL to recover these costs. Convinced that it was error-free, ACL cited the third-party takeover defence which can exonerate „those responsible“ from liability in certain cases. The OPA provides a full liability defence in four listed circumstances: Relationships between individuals or groups are the contacts between them and how they relate to each other. [a] The responsible party is not responsible for moving costs or damages. if [that] party proves by a preponderance of evidence that the exemption. of hydrocarbons and the resulting damage or transport costs were caused exclusively by: (1) force majeure; (2) an act of war; (3) an act or omission of a third party, other than an employee or representative of the controller or a third party, whose act or omission is related to a contractual relationship with the controller. or (4) any combination of subsections (1), (2) and (3).
A relationship is also a close friendship between two people, especially one that involves sexual or romantic feelings. Hello everyone, I wonder if there is a difference between the above sentences in legal language when we refer to the relationship between certain legal provisions. I mean the context as: It is undisputed that the oil spill of 23. The month of July 2008 was caused by illegal conduct and infringements committed by DRD Towing Company (DRD) in its contractual obligation to transport the barge filled with ACL`s fuel. As a result, the resignation was caused by gross negligence, wilful misconduct or breach of regulations by „a person acting in a contractual relationship with ACL“, and ACL is therefore not entitled to limited liability. `The court amended the legal classification of the act into a document under Article 13(1) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 286(1) of the Criminal Code.` The phrase „in relation to“ indicates that the manager wants to meet with you and discuss directly the problem of the theft that occurred in the office. Both render the same meaning, but „in relation to“ elicits a more urgent tone than „in relation to“. You can talk about the relationship between two people or groups in the same way. ACL owns the tug, but has a contract with DRD to operate it. In 2008, the actions of the DRD crew resulted in criminal convictions under the Clean Water Act (SEA) and the Safe Harbours and Waterways Act (PSSA), as well as significant financial damages.
In the case of ships, the „responsible party“ is „any person who owns, operates or charters the ship“. ACL, as the responsible party, incurred approximately $70 million in cleanup costs and damages for the nearly 300,000 gallons of spillage. The U.S. has also incurred about $20 million in cleanup costs and damages. Conduct does not automatically follow „in the context“ of a contractual relationship merely because of the existence of such a relationship. Rather, the conduct must have a causal or logical connection to the contractual relationship. Therefore, the acts or omissions of the third party that cause a spill occur „in the context of a contractual relationship“ between the responsible party and the third party if the acts or omissions relate to the contractual relationship in the sense that the acts and omissions of the third party would not have occurred without that contractual relationship. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) On November 7, in U.S. v. American Commercial Lines, LLC, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court`s decision that American Commercial Lines (ACL), owner of a tugboat, was. Subscribe to America`s largest dictionary and get thousands of other definitions and an advanced search – ad-free! The actions of the contract crew caused a massive oil spill in the Mississippi River, cannot rely on third-party defense of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) to prevent the U.S. government from paying an additional $20 million to reimburse government response costs, and otherwise it was not entitled to limited liability due to the nature of the conduct of the operator. If you would like to know how Lexology can advance your content marketing strategy, please email [email protected].