https://www.gao.gov/products/416468

B-114472: Jul 10, 1956

LTD.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 15. YOU URGE THAT THE SET-OFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. THAT THE DAMAGE WAS OF A PRESHIPMENT NATURE. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. HAVE FOUND NOTHING REQUIRING MODIFICATION OF OUR PREVIOUS HOLDING. WITHOUT REGARD TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE LIMITATION ON SUITS CONTAINED IN THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT. WE...

https://www.gao.gov/products/415925

B-114472: May 22, 1957

LTD.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 7. YOU HAVE RAISED A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THESE SETOFFS WERE NOT MADE FROM AMOUNTS DUE TO OTHER CARRIERS THAN THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE. " WERE DEDUCTED ADMINISTRATIVELY FEBRUARY 4. " WERE DEDUCTED ADMINISTRATIVELY IN MAKING PAYMENT OF YOUR BILL 526 FOR DEMURRAGE ON CARGO DISCHARGED BY BY "CINGALESE PRINCE" AT NEW YORK. WAS ADMINISTRATIVEL...

https://www.gao.gov/products/481689

B-114472: Sep 24, 1956

THE SET-OFF WAS MADE TO RECOVER FOR DAMAGES TO RUBBER SHIPPED FROM PENANG. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED INFORMALLY THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOTED AN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF ISTHMIAN STEAMSHIP CO. DEDUCTIONS MADE FROM FUNDS SUBSEQUENTLY DUE THE PARTICULAR CARRIERS INVOLVED TO RECOVER FOR DAMAGE TO GOVERNMENT PROPERTY WERE PROPER AND MUST BE SUSTAINED. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE IN SOME CASES MAY HAVE MADE...

https://www.gao.gov/products/472694

B-114472: Aug 07, 1956

THE SETOFF WAS MADE TO RECOVER FOR DAMAGES TO RUBBER SHIPPED FROM PENANG. WAS TO ATTEST THAT THE COURTS HAVE SIMILARLY CONSTRUED THE STATUTE. WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE SON CASE. IS REQUIRED TO SETTLE AND ADJUST ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS WHATEVER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST IT. INCLUDING THOSE IN WHICH YOUR AGENCY IS INVOLVED. IT IS THE BURDEN OF ANY PERSON WHO PRESENTS A CLAIM T...

https://www.gao.gov/products/455093

B-114472: Aug 25, 1955

LDT.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF MARCH 25. " AND THAT THE STAINS IN THE RUBBER WERE CAUSED PRIOR TO THE DELIVERY OF THE RUBBER TO YOUR VESSEL FOR TRANSPORTATION. YOU CONTEND THAT SPLINTER AND PAPER ADHERENCE TO THE RUBBER WAS DUE TO THE INHERENT VICE OF THE RUBBER. YOUR PRESENT ALLEGATIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED IN THE ABOVE DECISION OF MARCH 16TH. YOU...