the business law

The Clean Water and Oil Pollution Acts are two major pieces of law aimed at mitigating the environmental harm caused by oil spills (Allison and Prentice, 2009). These laws have been significant in addressing this topic since the mid-nineteenth century. In this regard, oil spills are commonly associated with the leakage of hydrocarbons from liquid petroleum into a large body of water, especially within the aquatic environment, as a result of human activities in such areas. The word oil spills usually apply to spillage of oil in marine areas where there is the release of oil into the ocean. Enacted in the late 19th century, the Oil Pollution Act has the resources and ability to assist in dealing with future anticipated accidents of oil spillage.
Markedly, the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act was in an effort to assist in the cleaning up of oil spillage that accidently occurs by imposing hefty penalties (Fritz and Steen, 2010). Moreover, the delegation of the Oil Pollution Act lied in the capable hands of the United States Coast Guard. Additionally, adaption to the appropriate procedures as well as submission of a contingency plan for oil spill in correspondence to the federal authority is a mandatory requirement for oil industries as featured in the act. Nonetheless, all vessels within the United States waters transporting oil are required to have a mandatory double hull and must prove that all their operations in the US waters are insurable order to cover for any liabilities. On the other hand, the implementation of the Clean Water Act legislation provided a platform for liability and response after reports on oil spillage by reliable parties.
As Fritz and Steen (2010) observes, clean Water Act facilitates a close monitoring of the quality of water by assisting in the control of discharge from the source point. Ideally, it is illegal to discharge pollutants into the open water within the United States without securing a permit from the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System which entrusted by the government to monitor the quality of water under this act. In this respect, the state provides a mandatory classification of the body of water through the purposely-intended usage and then enacting a plan to ensure that the mass of water adheres to the set standards of quality (Allison and Prentice, 2009). This act requires the federal government to follow an established response system in the event a hazardous material and oil spills find their way into the water. The act has since increased the dimensions and role of the companies by developing a more robust response and planning system aimed at improving the response and preventing oil spill in the coastal waters.
2. Describe two measures incorporated towards the protection of Wetlands in the United States.
The government of United States of America including its citizens has begun recognizing the widespread and numerous benefits realized through wetlands (Courtney et al., 2012). This is despite the fact that the goods and services provided by wetlands have insignificant value in the market place and as a result, the benefits accrued from the wetlands are specifically for the public. Courtney et al. (2012) argues that it is important for the government to set up effective measures aimed at providing protection for the wetlands. To that end, Army Corps of Engineers in the United States formulated the issuance of discharge permit for fill and dredged discharge on government waters is one of the key measures considered under the protective guidelines of federal waters. In addition, there is another act formulated in 1985 referred to as the Food Security Act that provides income support and promotes lower priced commodity. The bill developed a program referred to as the swamp buster, which technically prevents farmers from converting wetlands for agricultural purposes. Towards that end, famers who convert wetlands into land for food crops are currently not eligible for benefits associated with the programs offered by the federal farm.
Part B
1. Identify a dry cleaning and automobile mechanics businesses within the local community that attempt to disclaim liability for loss of or damage to bailed property.
R and J Laundry Services
Randy Automobile Mechanics
R and J Dry cleaners mainly offer dry cleaning or laundry services while Randy Automobile deals with the repair of automobiles.
R and J dry cleaners assumes no responsibility or liability for defects or inherent weaknesses in all materials such as leather, satin, suede, vinyl, silk and polyurethane. The dry cleaning business does not guarantee against any damages caused on tender fabric, shrinkage, and color loss as well as any damage caused to items due to poor dye performance and defect in the manufacturing. Moreover, the dry cleaning business disclaims liability against failure of the item to withstand normal laundering procedures. Furthermore, the business disclaims liability against any damages caused on the item due buttons, zippers, beads, and ornament and against unclaimed garments. On the other hand, Randy Automobile disclaims liability by including or posting disclaimers signs on contracts.
Allison and Prentice (2009) however notes that disclaimers may not effectively claim liability should they fail to adhere to the terms and conditions of the company or if they were least aware of such terms. In addition, the company cannot disclaim negligence on the part of the mechanic company and the employees at large. For instance, if an employee negligently starts a fire within the repairing facility, which ends up causing damages to a customer’s car, Randy automobile will have to be liable for such damages. Moreover, Randy automobile disclaims liability for items stolen or damaged in a customer’s car within the company without their consent unless they got the information prior to leaving the car with the mechanic. Randy automobile repairs do not accept responsibility for cars stolen from their repair shop unless the theft occurs due to their own negligence. In this regard, they disclaim liability for cars stolen as result of negligence by the customer. The company may also disclaim liability for damages that may arise from negligent or faulty services of a third party mechanics at the time when they receive a car for repair.
2. Providing supporting facts and a justifiable reasoned opinion as whether any of the two identified business establishments have effectively disclaimed liability.
Indeed, the two businesses have effectively disclaimed liability due to the following reasons. Foremost, the businesses have an ideal liability disclaimer, which effectively restates the consequences that the court already considers as effective (Courtney et al. 2012). In other words, their disclaimers look more specific in terms of distancing themselves from any indirect, direct, incidental and consequential breakage and damages to property in connection to the misuse and use their products and services. Secondly, their disclaimers have the ability to receive reinforcement since they restate the law as they already are through clear warnings. Therefore, with or without a disclaimer and through law, the customers cannot use the product and services in an unforeseeable way then claim for liability against damages or loss of their property.


References
Allison, J. R., & Prentice, R. A. (2009). Business law. Austin, TX: University Co-Op.
Courtney, T. B., Hutchinson, G. B., O'Leary, D., & Courtney, T. B. (2012). The law of companies. London: Routledge.
Fritz, D. E., & Steen, A. E. (2010). Information to Minimize Impacts from Freshwater Oil Spills. International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings, 25(18), 965-966. Doi: 10.7901/2169-3358-1995-1-965