Incarceration and owing money are different. Crime and civil liability are different. I feel very "true" to myself, thank you.
GOP Blocks Oil Spill Liability Bill
- Thread starter Cheezy the Wiz
- Start date
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
So BP signs a contract with the gov for exploritory drilling. The contract states that in the instance of an oil spill their total liability will be limited to $75 million. Then there is an oil spill. Then the gov changes the contract to $10 billion liability.
How is this different to any other contract, other than the gov makes the law and can thus simply change the rules of the game as they see fit?
There is no contract between the government and BP limiting damages. A statutory damage cap is just that--statutory.
The damages cap is a law limiting the damages that plaintiffs, such as a class action brought by Gulf coast fisherman, could sue for. The government is free to pursue a very hefty fine, much bigger than 75 mil, by filing criminal charges.
The damages cap is a law limiting the damages that plaintiffs, such as a class action brought by Gulf coast fisherman, could sue for. The government is free to pursue a very hefty fine, much bigger than 75 mil, by filing criminal charges.
But how can there be criminal charges when the government flat out declined to require them to do what was necessary to prevent this kind of accident. It isn't that it was never conceived as a possibility, it was. It's just that the government willfully chose not to require it.
BP acted in good faith within the requirements set down by law. They should not be held responsible because the government made some decisions on what would not would not be required.
BP acted in good faith within the requirements set down by law. They should not be held responsible because the government made some decisions on what would not would not be required.
I don't think the government is absolved from blame, certainly the government as a regulatory body has failed the public. Nonetheless I don't think BP is blameless either. Personally I'd prefer a situation where BP, TransOcean, whomever, winds up paying all the cleanup costs as well as compensating citizens and other businesses for their damages, if there was indeed some sort of negligence or wrong doing going on here. I'm not under the illusion that criminal charges aren't a political move. Of course if someone did do something criminal here, then yes they should he held accountable.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
The gov signed an agreement for the drilling. If any other entity entered into such an agreement is would be some kind of contract.
The rules the gov had in place at the time of the signing of the agreement governing how that agreement would operate - in this instance the limited liability - would surely if the entity was anyone other than the gov be considered as part of the terms of that agreement.
Now it seems to me the gov signed a bloody stupid agreement. BP, given they have already spent many times their liability attempting to resolve the issue, clearly agree. That the agreement was absurd does not mean that it is therefore just fine and dandy to rewrite that agreement.
The rules the gov had in place at the time of the signing of the agreement governing how that agreement would operate - in this instance the limited liability - would surely if the entity was anyone other than the gov be considered as part of the terms of that agreement.
Now it seems to me the gov signed a bloody stupid agreement. BP, given they have already spent many times their liability attempting to resolve the issue, clearly agree. That the agreement was absurd does not mean that it is therefore just fine and dandy to rewrite that agreement.
No, there is no agreement of the kind you're implying. Was the Federal government paying BP to drill oil for the American people? No.
Signing off on permits and a lease are not the same thing as a contract for services between BP and the federal government, complete with some sort of limitation of liability.
Let's not get too confused here. We're talking about a law limiting damage awards, not a contract limiting liability between BP and the Feds. These are very different things.
Signing off on permits and a lease are not the same thing as a contract for services between BP and the federal government, complete with some sort of limitation of liability.
Let's not get too confused here. We're talking about a law limiting damage awards, not a contract limiting liability between BP and the Feds. These are very different things.
No, it really doesn't do that.
A law would force one or both of two things:
1. Companies would spend more on safety measures.
2. Companies would spend more on a higher liability coverage for their insurance against these incidences.
These oil spills don't happen frequently enough for either of these measures to bankrupt independent produces, and I'm positive a number of independent produces could band together to self-insure.
Fixed that for you.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
If I sign a lease it is a contract. If you sign a lease it is a contract. Why is it not a contract if the gov signs it?
Can we at least agree it was a contract?
Can we at least agree it was a contract?
The standard in the criminal trial was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil trial standard was preponderance of the evidence. It is possible to be able to meet the lower standard of proof without reaching the higher one.
BP was leasing from TransOcean. If the government signed any sort of lease, there could be a contractual limit, however, a statute is not that limit unless you peg & freeze it in the contract to be the unchanging limit. And can you really do that with regard to third parties? I could see limiting the damage contractually between contracting parties, but not limiting the damage contractually for those not a party to the contract - fishermen, widows, and orphans, for example.
Sure. I don't even know if there is a lease, I just assumed there was one.
Who cares about the lease though? A lease of drilling rights is not a contract to drill for the feds. You're still talking about two completely different things.
This is a statutory damage cap. And if there were some sort of fed/BP contract limiting liability in some manner it would only limit the parties to the contract anyway.
Who cares about the lease though? A lease of drilling rights is not a contract to drill for the feds. You're still talking about two completely different things.
This is a statutory damage cap. And if there were some sort of fed/BP contract limiting liability in some manner it would only limit the parties to the contract anyway.
There is no "good faith" when someone meets the bare minimum the law allows, while knowing full well that they, for an amount of money trivial compared to the risk, install proven tech that lowers the risk.
warpus
In pork I trust
I agree with VRWCAgent; He was either guilty or he wasn't.
I agree. It's just the prosecutor has a tougher job of proving it than the civil lawyer, so there will be some false negatives on the criminal side that pan out on the civil side. If the civil trail was first and the civil lawyers won, does that mean we skip the criminal trial and automatically find him guilty?
warpus
In pork I trust
Nah, have the criminal trial first, and if he is found guilty, allow the family members to sue him for the emotional distress or what have you... If he's not found guilty there is nothing to sue him for.
Why force the family to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard when the burden in a civil case is mere preponderance of the evidence? Why should victims of crime be disfavored in civil court?
Why should anyone be tried for the same crime twice, regardless of whether it is once in criminal and once in civil? And please, don't give me different "titles" of crimes. HE was being prosecuted and then civilly sued because she'd been murdered, period.
He was tried twice for the same offense.
He was tried twice for the same offense.
warpus
In pork I trust
Because he either committed the murder or he didn't. What *should* happen is a court figures out whether he did or he didn't and you go from there. You can't have one court saying he did and one that he didn't - for reasons of sillyness.
A "not guilty" verdict isn't saying he didn't do it. It's just saying that it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.
Similar threads
- Locked
