Benthic2
Guru
PSN:
Derogatory and descriptive are not mutually exclusive. If I were to call someone an overly negtive complaining blowhard troll on a forum...for example, I think that would be considered both descriptive and derogatory.
I did look up a few points before my post, as I wanted to make sure my recollections were correct. I had a business law class a number of years ago, and the professor had a thing for maritime law, so again...2 concepts that are not mutually exclusive....I wasn't clueless, but did look a few things up first. Forgive me, I like to be accurate.
I think a time and materials approach to billing makes sense. You'd be entitled to a higher pay for the riskier stuff, and if it was dark, rainy late at night, etc. But I stand by my comment that the work required is the same whether I have a fancy boat with expensive things, or a stinky old tub. I would also hate to think that a rescuer passed up me in my sinking tub who was in real danger because a brand new Kady Krogen got stuck in the sand when the tide went out, because the KK is more expensive and he stands to profit more.
If 95% of your jobs were time and materials, why not make that the standard with an allowance for exceptional situations. If you do something extraordinary, your compensations should be extraordinary. Have a provision that in rare cases you can charge a kings ransom but it has to be approved by someone other than the salvor, like a court. I have a real problem with the salvor being able to define a situation as salvage, then make up an unreasonably large number to charge the owner, and places a lien on the boat and its all legal. Now, the owner has to go to court for justice, because the salvor is just greedy. The decision to label something as salvage and the amount of the award should not be decided by the person who benefits from those decisions.
SaltyD:
Another faulty argument. Where does it say the only 2 options are that $200/year cover everything, OR Salvage law is fair and equitable ??? No I don't think $200/year should cover raising a sunken vessel or, in fact, have any objection to a salvor being paid very well for the services they provide. But I also think its wrong to apply a law that was created so long ago for commercial vessels to recreational boats. The law was made because it was impossible to get in touch with the owner of a commercial vessel in a timely manner back in the day, and it was important that the owners interests were taken care of. It was to benefit the ship owner. In a recreational boat, the owner is right there.....and if the owner ends up going to court to fight an exhorbitant bill for tens of thousands of dollars, then his interests weren't really served, were they ? If the intent of the law was to protect owners, but owners ( orf recreational boats ) are protesting the solution, the law is either not doing what it was intended to do, or being mis-applied.
Derogatory and descriptive are not mutually exclusive. If I were to call someone an overly negtive complaining blowhard troll on a forum...for example, I think that would be considered both descriptive and derogatory.
I did look up a few points before my post, as I wanted to make sure my recollections were correct. I had a business law class a number of years ago, and the professor had a thing for maritime law, so again...2 concepts that are not mutually exclusive....I wasn't clueless, but did look a few things up first. Forgive me, I like to be accurate.
I think a time and materials approach to billing makes sense. You'd be entitled to a higher pay for the riskier stuff, and if it was dark, rainy late at night, etc. But I stand by my comment that the work required is the same whether I have a fancy boat with expensive things, or a stinky old tub. I would also hate to think that a rescuer passed up me in my sinking tub who was in real danger because a brand new Kady Krogen got stuck in the sand when the tide went out, because the KK is more expensive and he stands to profit more.
If 95% of your jobs were time and materials, why not make that the standard with an allowance for exceptional situations. If you do something extraordinary, your compensations should be extraordinary. Have a provision that in rare cases you can charge a kings ransom but it has to be approved by someone other than the salvor, like a court. I have a real problem with the salvor being able to define a situation as salvage, then make up an unreasonably large number to charge the owner, and places a lien on the boat and its all legal. Now, the owner has to go to court for justice, because the salvor is just greedy. The decision to label something as salvage and the amount of the award should not be decided by the person who benefits from those decisions.
SaltyD:
Another faulty argument. Where does it say the only 2 options are that $200/year cover everything, OR Salvage law is fair and equitable ??? No I don't think $200/year should cover raising a sunken vessel or, in fact, have any objection to a salvor being paid very well for the services they provide. But I also think its wrong to apply a law that was created so long ago for commercial vessels to recreational boats. The law was made because it was impossible to get in touch with the owner of a commercial vessel in a timely manner back in the day, and it was important that the owners interests were taken care of. It was to benefit the ship owner. In a recreational boat, the owner is right there.....and if the owner ends up going to court to fight an exhorbitant bill for tens of thousands of dollars, then his interests weren't really served, were they ? If the intent of the law was to protect owners, but owners ( orf recreational boats ) are protesting the solution, the law is either not doing what it was intended to do, or being mis-applied.
Last edited: