Legal Perspectives of Federal Property - Essay Example

Running Head: Legal Perspectives Legal Perspectives s Legal Perspectives Putting asidethe fact that this plane is federal property, is this plane lost, misplaced, or abandoned This is quite an unusually circumstance. The owner did not intend to leave the plane in that location, but because of the circumstances (the plane crashed there), the owner was forced to leave it there. This shows that the property was lost. However, the fact tat there is no indication that any efforts were made to locate the plane by the rightful owners (the US Navy), this classifies the property as abandoned. Regardless of the classification of the property, it falls under the Law of Salvage. Under the doctrine, original owners retain ownership interest, although the salvage is entitled to a very liberal salvage award. Should the federal government have special rules, or should federal property be subject to the same laws/rules/regulations as private property Why or why not The answer is both yes and no. The laws should be the same with a few stipulations for Government property with Special circumstances and consideration: Many military tools are classified, not for the public and are used to protect our country. Is this devise dangerous if operated by an unskilled person Cannot be gifted or sold without the courts permission to another country. Potentially harmful to the public safety and or environment Must be preserved as a landmark or object for historical purposes. However, when property is abandoned, the way the plane was in this situation, the owner gives up the reasonable expectation of privacy concerning it. The finder of abandoned property is entitled to keep it, and a police officer may take possession of abandoned property as evidence without violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As deciding factor Federal law may have been given the monopoly on a subject preempting the state laws, when the federal court must try the case, it will apply the laws of the state where the controversy happened. Do you think that Mr. Champlin should have consulted with the Navy before spending his time and money on this project Should he (or the general public for that matter) have known about this special rule regarding federal property Consider whether there should be a time limit or statute of limitations regarding the forfeiture or non-forfeiture of title. Also, consider whether property should be considered lost or abandoned by the failure to protect or attempt recovery of the property. Mr. Champlin should have consulted with the Navy first. If he had taken the proper steps in notifying the Navy of what he was doing, he might have had more rights to fight the Navy. If the Government would ensure the public knew about the rules of federal property, perhaps this might not have even been a case. A time statute should be in effect. If you look at the Estray Statues it says many states have enacted estray statues that give a finder of mislaid of lost property clear title to the property if certain requirements are met. The requirements are 1. Reporting the find to an appropriate government agency 2. Advertising the lost property 3. The owner not claiming the property within a stated time (e.g., one year). The finder acquires title to the property and is thereafter not required to return the property if the rightful owner appears to claim it (Cheeseman, 2003 pg 918). Since there are special rules that apply to federal property maybe this statues wouldn't have helped him. However, if he and the public were aware of the special rules he might have reconsidered doing the project in the first place. I think there should be a time limit regarding forfeiture or non-forfeiture of title. If the owner doesn't claim the property in a certain amount of time then obviously it is not that important to them. If someone else finds this property and the owner doesn't claim it in a certain amount of time they should legally be entitled to the property in hand. There should be an exception to the rule, lets say the statue time has run out but if the owner can prove that they have been attempting to find the property it just took them a longer time to locate it then they should be entitled to recovering their property. Is Mr. Champlin entitled to any reimbursement for money spent According o the Salvage Law the basic purpose is to encourage recovery of property lost at sea so that the property can be returned to commerce. In this instance it is an archaeological salvage. Giving the salvors a right to compensation for services rendered, on behalf of the owners to the property encourages salvors. If there is no prohibition of salvage then the salver is entitled to an award as cited by Captain J. Ashley Roach, JAGC, U.S. Navy (ret). In regard to salvage award, the court opinion from The Balcwall is often recited "Courts of admiralty usually consider the following circumstances as the main ingredients in determining the amount of the award to be decreed for salvage service: (1) The labor expended by the salvors is rendering the salvage service. (2) The promptness, skill and energy displayed in rendering the service and saving the property. (3) The value of the property employed by the salvors in rendering the service, and the dangers to which such property was exposed. (4) The risk incurred by the salvors in securing the property from the impending peril. (5) The value of the property saved. (6) The degree of danger from which the property was rescued. The salvage award can never be greater than the value of the salvaged property and will always be substantially lower except in the case of abandoned or derelict property. Where substantial values are involved, awards tend to be under 20% of the value of the property. Mr. Champlin should have a salvage award for the time and money spent salvaging the TBD-1 Devastator. The US Navy would have spent this much if they had salvaged it themselves. Is the Navy being unjustly enriched if he gets nothing The Navy would be unjustly enriched if they do not give him a salvage award. They could have done this salvage themselves. It was only after Mr. Champlin salvaged the Devastator that the U.S. Navy wanted the salvaged Devastator. Mr. Champlin should get an award on this salvage if he did everything correctly before the salvage began. Consider what this rule might mean to businesses, particularly those that contract with the government. Consider, for example, a store or outlet that purchases federal/military surplus. What provisions might they need to include in a contract that might not be required in a typical commercial or consumer contract When dealing with the Government, I feel businesses should be very aware of the unjustly rules that apply to the government's property. Before becoming involved businesses should ensure that once the merchandise has been paid for, the government will not return to reclaim the merchandise. Consider what this rule might mean to businesses, particularly those that contract with the government. Consider, for example, a store or outlet that purchases federal/military surplus. What provisions might they need to include in a contract that might not be required in a typical commercial or consumer contract When companies are considering purchases from the U.S. government there are some restrictions for qualifications on purchases for resale or personal property use. The government entity Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) is a primary level field activity of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). Its Mission is to provide the Department of Defense (DOD) with services for the disposal of material no longer needed for national defense, in which they awarded an extended contract to Government Liquidation, LLC to act s the purchaser and re-seller of the military surplus. (DRMS global security) The products that a federal/military surplus store or outlet may purchase may vary from location to location and its availability as it is purged from military inventories. It is purchased through bids, auctions, and negotiated sales, in contract to regular distribution channels of typical commercial and consumer contracting. (DRMS global security) In conclusion, after studying the problem Mr. Champlin had with the salvage of the Devastator, the U.S. Navy should get it back because of archeological and historic reasons. Though there were some questions arising from the situation, how did the U.S. mark in their log the downed Devastator when it went into the ocean Did all the proper papers and queries get done before the salvage began The government should reimburse Mr. Champlin the money it cost him for the salvage of the Devastator. Ethically this is the only right thing to do. Also looking at it from the government's position, Mr. Champlin never contacted them to his intentions, thus proving their case that no repayment for his service need be rendered. Ethical no, but legal, yes. References The Adjective Misplaced, Retrieved 8/9/04 http://www.coasci.princeton.edu Admiralty and Maritime Law: Salvage, Retrieved August 9, 2004 http://members.aol.com/dangelaw/admir9.html Appendix 6, Sales Terms and Conditions for Department of Defense Excess, Surplus and Foreign Excess Personal Property Requiring Demilitarization and/or Trade Security Controls, Dod DEMIL, Retrieved 8/9/04, https://www.demil.osd.mil/documents/app6_99.pdf Cheeseman, H. 2003 Contemporary Business & E-commerce Law, Fourth Edition, Chap. Prentice Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) by globalsecurity.org, Retrieved 8/9/04, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/dmrs.htm Roach, Captain J. Ashley, JAGC, U.S. Navy (ret). Shipwrecks: Reconciling Salvage, Retrieved 8/8/04 http://prosea.org/articles-news/exploration/SHIPWRECKS_RECONCILING _SALVAGE.html George d'Angelo with Admiralty and Maritime Law http://members.aol.com/dangelaw/admir9.html Read More