Case Review
The case under consideration is a simple one and the misunderstanding that arose between the US Navy and the owner of the aviation museum in Arizona Mr. Champlin is the result of focusing on the wrong points of the legislation. Mr. Champlin considers his rights for property and reimbursement according to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act of the US, while the US Navy is led by the set of regulations ruling the protection and maintenance of the governmental and historic property including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470) and Theft of Government Property Act (18 U.S.C. 641) (Naval History and Heritage, 2009).
Thus, Mr. Champlin’s claims about the possession of the lost/abandoned property are reasonable in relation to any other but the governmental property. According to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, “Lost property is considered property that the owner has involuntarily parted from, either through neglect, carelessness, or mistake”, while the abandoned property is “property that the owner has relinquished all rights, title, claim, and possession to” and after three years of being unclaimed the property can be possessed by another owner (Naval History and Heritage, 2009).
However, the governmental property, which the US Navy property belongs to, is regulated by the US constitution and the above mentioned acts according to which “Department of the Navy ship and aircraft wrecks are government property in the custody of the US Navy. These seemingly abandoned properties remain government-owned until the Navy takes specific formal action to dispose of them” (Naval History and Heritage, 2009).
Therefore, Mr. Champlin has no legal grounds to claim the property ownership or reimbursement. At the same time, he is under the threat of a large fine or even a prison sentence of up to 5 years according to the Theft of Government Property Act (18 U.S.C. 641) (Naval History and Heritage, 2009).
Advice
Carrying out any business activities has always been a difficult task due to the number of regulations and laws that limit and restrict the possibility of activities and their acceptability in various regions of the world. Any person or an organization that plans on opening an international or global business enterprise should consult the specialists and understand the meaning of the statement “For each benefit gained by regulation, there is a cost”.
The first advice that can be given to a person or an organization planning on launching the global business initiative is to be aware of the possible, and almost surely existing, differences between business regulations of different countries. In other words, it is impossible to launch a global enterprise with the uniform set of rules and conforming to the single established regulations code (Doing Business, 2009). For example, the US business environment has certain taxes and requirements for opening an enterprise, partnership, etc. On the other hand, Russia and/or South Africa have different taxation policies and requirements for carrying out business activities.
At the same time, the above statement “For each benefit gained by regulation, there is a cost” is the point that unites all the business regulations in different countries. The essence of the statement lies in the fact that any regulation is the result of referring one’s freedoms to the authority that provides equal protection for all individual and organizational subjects of entrepreneurial activities in the country. Thus, the cost of the equal taxation climate for all businesses in a country is the duty to pay a sum in taxes (Doing Business, 2009).
To conclude, launching an international business involves getting consulted by specialists and understanding the essence of the statement “For each benefit gained by regulation, there is a cost”, which means that equal protection and regulation of the proper business conduct require every business entity to pay a cost for this regulation.
References
Doing Business. (2009). Measuring Business Regulations. Web.
Naval History and Heritage. (2009). Department of the Navy Policy Regarding Custody and Management of Sunken Naval Vessels and Aircraft Wreck Sites. Web.