|
How odd, to American eyes. Which after all are close kin to the British and the laws and obligations a Receiver of Wrecks must have.
If the RoW is negigent in promptly discharging his duties, and that negligence or failure to take timely action results in the completer loss of the vessel, one might ask whether that RoW is now personally liable to both the salvor and the owner, for having destroyed the value of the owner's property by refusing the salvor to operate on the vessel.
Personally I'd rather see the RoW beaten with a good barnacle-encrusted stick. I fully expect that permission was denied because no one offered the RoW a hefty payment under the table. That's about the only plausible explanation (other than literal idiocy) for not ensuring a vessel is promptly salvaged and removed from the reef.
Unless...the removal now becomes a matter where the government will remove it and send the owners a bill--part of which pays for the operation of the RoW office.
Sorry, folks, but as American journalists say, if you can't understand what is going on, follow the money! This all points to pockets expecting to be lined, one way or another.
|