Talk:Carriage of Goods by Sea Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Further development

Following wikification, these questions spring to mind.

• When was the original act passed?
• At this time, how much was £100 worth - early in the 20th century, this was $480. Suggested formulation, depending on correct conversion:

It increased the amount that shipowners would have to pay cargo owners for damage in transit from GBP100 (then US$480) per package to $500 per package

• Citations particularly for "some courts agreed" and the final paragraph.
• I've removed some of the most blatant POV phrasing, but the article still feels slightly biassed in parts.
• What happened before COGSA? Does it still apply?

Don't answer here: change the main article. Eludium-q36 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. It seems this tag has been in place for so long that it no longer applies to the article as it stands, therefore I'm removing it. I personally see no reason for it to stand, either. Certainly if anyone wishes to return the tag, and show their reasoning here in the discussion page, then that is fine. If so, it will be for currently existing conditions. I feel the conditions of the original tag have radically changed, and it no longer applies to this topic. Jjdon (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Item 2

I removed the phrase "in large part because organizations like the Maritime Law Association of the United States, which opposed the changes, were controlled by attorneys primarily representing shipowners and their insurers" as why Congress did not pass the Visby Amendments. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the attorneys themselves don't care. They get paid to settle disputes either way. It's the insurers (and shipowners) who pay; the sentence suggested that Evil Lawyers are behind things, and without any source that's biased.

71.206.221.180

[edit] Item 3

It appears that section 46USC30701 doesn't exist. See gpo.gov. Haus^Talk 17:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)