The Importance of Executing the New Agreement of the City - Research Paper Example

Briefing the Case of Case and Citation Gangnam Style V. of Savannah, Georgia Facts The relevant facts were, Jae-Sang Park purchased the defendant’s boat by name, Gangnam style, and used it as the primary residence until April 2012. On March 2009, Park and City Marina got into an agreement, under the terms of which Park had to pay a monthly fee of $1, 174.48 on first of each month. Park promptly honoured the agreement, until September 14, 2011, when Savannah City Council adopted an agreement that increased monthly rates. They sent numerous letters to all residents and clients informing them of the new agreement. However, Park never obeyed the new agreement in that he remained at the marina after March 1, 2012 and repeatedly listened to loud music at night despite same being prohibited. On March 20th, the city files a case against the Defendant’s Gangnam style for asserting jurisdiction based on federal maritime law, alleging that it was under the act of law. Mr Park affirmed that the defendant’s was not a vessel for the purpose of the federal maritime law. With this in mind, he believed that the defendant’s violated the act under 1 U.S.C. 3 (2006), claiming that the Gangnam style was not a vessel. Legal Issues The legal issue was whether Gangnam Style was a vessel. In this case, Mr Park affirmed that the defendant’s never qualified as maritime transport or a vessel of maritime commerce, but rather designed as a floating structure that served as shelter. Further, the city asserted that the vessel is capable of transporting goods and people over water. This was later supported by judge Cowell who supported the city’s argument that under federal law, the word vessel described the watercraft, or any artificial machine used as a means of transportation on water. In explanation, the judge used plain meaning of the statute of Gangnam style as a vessel used for the purpose of transporting people or goods over water as indicated in order 1 under subsection 3 of Water transportation. In essence, the general provision of the rule is that a vessel is any machine that offers means of water transportation. While it appeared the congress never intended to group boats like Gangnam style in the act, the main responsibility was to interpret the law as written. As indicated, the rule provides that a vessel includes any means of water transportation that can transport people and goods. Following this, the judge interpreted the law as defined in the act that a vessel is any machine used for transportation over water. Opinion on the legal issues From the mentioned case, there are various things that are worth considering before giving the answers to the legal issue. First, it is important to note that Mr. Park, a known Korean artist, purchased the Defendant’s boat, Gangnam style and later used the vessel as a primary residence until April 2012. Secondly, Mr. Pack failed to comply with the laws set on September 14, 2011 that instituted strict rules on noise. The City Marina informed all its residents and clients on the new requirements informing them on the need to comply with rules and regulations envisioned by the agreement. Despite the City setting the new requirements that obligated noise curfew, Mr. Park breached the agreement as he continued to listen to loud music at night. Following this, one can affirm that Mr. Pack was guilty of not complying with the new requirements. Regardless of the fact that he claimed to have never received new agreement letters, Mr. Pack bleached the agreement that the city had obligated. Accordingly, Mr. Park alleged that Gangnam style was more than a floating structure as it served as a house boat and was not capable of maritime transportation. The city challenged his opinion arguing that the vessel would act as maritime transportation. The law provides in full the word vessel as the description of artificial machine or watercraft used for or capable of transporting people and goods. Because the Defendant’s boat can move over water without sinking, it qualifies to be a vessel capable of over-water transporting. In other words, it clearly aligns with the definition of a vessel as described in the act under 1 U.S.C. 3 (2006). Although Mr. Park used the vessel for shelter purposes, it qualifies to be a vessel of water transportation as it transports people and goods. However, Mr. Park’s opinion would have been essential if the vessel was compared with a vehicle that majors on land transportation. In this case, he would affirm that the machine was incapable of transporting, which would be worth consideration. Typically, it would be obvious that the machine served for shelter’s purpose and was not capable of land transportation. Nevertheless, considering the machine could transport people, then it suits to be categorized as a vessel described under the order 1 in section 3 as mentioned above. In law, it is important to define legal issues as known since if this is not done, it may create conflicts among parties. In this case, defining vessel is essential to judge whether the Defendant’s Boat falls under the definition. As argued, the object fits the definition of a vessel as defined since it can be used for water transporting. Mr. Pack seems to underlie his opinion on a personal judgement that the machine was only used for shelter purposes and maritime transportation. However, as defined in the law, a vessel is any machine that can be used for transportation over water. The fact that the defendant’s boat was used for transportation means it suits to be defined as a vessel. Still, it is important to note that law obliges one to abide by the agreement set if it is beneficial for human purposes. Mr. Pack breached the agreement by listening to loud music at night despite that being prohibited. Previously, the City Marina sent letters describing the new requirements and notifying them of the importance of executing the new agreement of the city. Nevertheless, Mr. Park never regarded the new agreement and he remained at the marina, which was against the new agreement. From this argument, one may reasonably affirm that Mr. Park was guilty of not abiding by the new agreement despite having strong claims of the defendant’s boat not qualifying as a vessel. He based his argument on a personal perception rather than on what the law defined. This case is paramount as it creates a strong platform for law students to appreciate the need for understanding legal issues. The case offers great insights into various challenges encountered by judges in bringing to light how the law is to be interpreted and different subjects defined (Mensah, Tafsir, Rüdiger, and Chie (10). Works Cited Mensah Thomas , Tafsir Ndiaye, Rüdiger Wolfrum, and Chie Kojima. Law of the Sea, Environmental Law, and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007. Internet resource. Read More