# The Griffin: Martime/Salvage Law Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 31, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811 "2009-01-31T01:11:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![St.Urho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e7dd6/32.png) [@St.Urho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/St.Urho)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/1 "2009-01-31T01:11:56Z")
I was intrigued by [this article](http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/521937.html?nav=5006) that I saw in my hometown paper. I don’t really know anything about the relevant law, but why wouldn’t the salvager own the salvage rights? The state says that federal law gives them ownership of “abandoned vessels on the Great Lakes bottomlands.” The French government says they still own the ship, as well. > [@](#): > > The claim is based on documents showing the fatal expedition was undertaken on behalf of the French crown and was not a private venture, the spokesman said. Can anyone explain how this works? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![bilious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@bilious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bilious)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/2 "2009-01-31T01:41:21Z")
Law of property and ownership recognises quite a few states of property. Generally we’re familiar with states such as possession and ownership. If you ‘lose’ something you lose possession, but you haven’t lost ownership. Ownership doesn’t lapse because of mere time out of your possession. The usual standard for lapse of ownership because of lack of possession is an act or series of acts which constitute giving up your right to the property or giving up the search for it. Rubbish for example, is thrown into a bin. A lost right shoe might be given up by throwing out the left shoe. A briefcase full of diamonds belonging to a recently deceased might be given up by the administratrix not including it in the estate. If the French government never ‘gave up’ the wreck, then it is not abandoned as is required for Michigan to obtain ownership. However, I think it would be a pretty tenuous legal argument. Salvage law probably puts some other rules into play about abandonment but I can’t speak for US salvage law in that regard. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/3 "2009-01-31T02:14:11Z")
I believe that the key is that the French are claiming the ship was acting on behalf of the French crown. My (limited) understanding of salvage law is that a government does not lose rights to its ships, unlike private vessels. For example, when Ballard found the Bismarck, he was quoted as saying that the German government had forbidden any salvage, asserting that the Bismarck was a government ship. That’s why there is no Bismarck salvage company, unlike the company that someone set up to obtain salvage rights to the Titanic. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/4 "2009-01-31T02:35:05Z")
So can Michigan send France a bill for 330 years of storage? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/5 "2009-01-31T03:24:50Z")
what expenses has Michigan been put to? ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/6 "2009-01-31T03:50:43Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > what expenses has Michigan been put to? Why is it only about recovering expenses? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/7 "2009-01-31T03:55:40Z")
Because as far as we know from the linked stories, there is no contract by which France agreed that Michigan would be storing the wreck, so Michigan does not have a claim in contract. In that sort of case, claims are usually based on quantum meruit - what reasonable expenses has the one party been put to, which it would be fair to require the other party to pay? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/8 "2009-01-31T03:57:13Z")
counting down until **Gfactor** weighs in with a link to a Michigan statute re recovery of wreck storage expenses: 10, 9, 8, … 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/9 "2009-01-31T03:58:46Z")
The Abandoned Shipwreck Act gives title to all abandoned wrecks on its submerged land to the United States and to the states for wrecks on their submerged lands. [43 U.S. Code § 2105 - Rights of ownership | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/43/usc_sec_43_00002105----000-.html) The key word is abandoned. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=case&no=992035P](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=case&no=992035P) (ASA does not modify common law of abandonment). On January 27, 2009, France filed a “Claim of Interest” that asserts it has not abandoned the wreck. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/10 "2009-01-31T04:14:42Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > counting down until **Gfactor** weighs in with a link to a Michigan statute re recovery of wreck storage expenses: 10, 9, 8, … > > 😛 Sorry I’m late: > [@](#): > > (a) Law of salvage and law of finds > The law of salvage and the law of finds shall not apply to abandoned shipwrecks to which section 2105 of this title applies. [43 U.S. Code § 2106 - Relationship to other laws | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/43/usc_sec_43_00002106----000-.html) As the Sixth Circcuit Court of Appeals noted in a recent opinion in this case, > [@](#): > > under the ASA, “\*f a diver now discovers a long-lost ship embedded in the submerged lands of a State, a finding of abandonment leaves the diver with neither title nor a salvage award.” _Great Lakes Exploration Group, LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked_, 522 F.3d 682 (6th Cir. 2008). So it boils down to a question of whether the wreck is abandoned, if it is, then salvage law doesn’t apply. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/11 "2009-01-31T04:16:53Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I believe that the key is that the French are claiming the ship was acting on behalf of the French crown. My (limited) understanding of salvage law is that a government does not lose rights to its ships, unlike private vessels. For example, when Ballard found the Bismarck, he was quoted as saying that the German government had forbidden any salvage, asserting that the Bismarck was a government ship. That’s why there is no Bismarck salvage company, unlike the company that someone set up to obtain salvage rights to the Titanic. Yes, well, the French sort of vigorously, um, _rejected_ said crown some years back as I recall. One would think that an argument could be made that since the crown ceased to be, said claims to anything formerly owned by that crown are null and void. After all, [they **haven’t** demanded the return of the Hope Diamond, and it _used to be in the crown!_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_Diamond) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/12 "2009-01-31T04:17:11Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] On January 27, 2009, France filed a “Claim of Interest” that asserts it has not abandoned the wreck. [/QUOTE] But did His Most Christian Majesty, of whom the current French Republic is the successor in international law, surrender his claim to the wreck, an aspect of his Crown sovereignty, in the general surrender of sovereignty over Canada to His Britannick Majesty in Article IV of the [Treaty of Paris, 1763](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris763.asp), which claim in turn now would be held by Her Majesty in Right of Canada? [QUOTE=The definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship between his Britannick Majesty, the Most Christian King, and the King of Spain. Concluded at Paris the 10th day of February, 1763. To which the King of Portugal acceded on the same day] **IV.** … Moreover, his Most Christian Majesty cedes and guaranties to his said Britannick Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the gulph and river of St. Lawrence, and in general, every thing that depends on the said countries, lands, islands, and coasts, with the sovereignty, property, possession, and all rights acquired by treaty, or otherwise, which the Most Christian King and the Crown of France have had till now over the said countries, lands, islands, places, coasts, and their inhabitants, **so that the Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whole to the said King, and to the Crown of Great Britain, and that in the most ample manner and form,** without restriction, and without any liberty to depart from the said cession and guaranty under any pretence, or to disturb Great Britain in the possessions above mentioned. [/QUOTE] Truly, these are deep waters, Watson. ---
**Author:** ![St.Urho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e7dd6/32.png) [@St.Urho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/St.Urho)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/13 "2009-01-31T04:26:02Z")
So how often is a shipwreck actually abandoned then, and how does that work? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/14 "2009-01-31T04:29:20Z")
> [@St.Urho](#): > > So how often is a shipwreck actually abandoned then, and how does that work? As Norther Piper says, abandonment is not implied for sovereigns. So the country pretty much has to say “we don’t want it.” No idea how often that happens. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/15 "2009-01-31T04:50:26Z")
Upon reading Michigan’s Motion for Summary Judgment, it looks like France’s claim was filed months after a court-imposed deadline. the claim reads: In accordance with principles, customs, and usages of international law, the general maritime law, and the laws of the United States and France . . . . 1. It is the owner of the shipwreck of \*Le Griffon \* 2. It has not abandoned its interests in _Le Griffon_ 3. The Republic of France maitains its interests in _Le Griffon_ as a sovereign vessel of the Crown of France, performing sovereign functions at the time of her loss, including as a vessel of exploration and warship on behalf of the Crown. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/16 "2009-01-31T04:54:06Z")
From [this site which I have no idea how accurate it is, but which isn’t obviously put up by some nutjob:](http://law.jrank.org/pages/9598/Quantum-Meruit.html): > [@](#): > > Courts have crafted four basic elements that the plaintiff must prove before she may recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit: (1) that valuable services were rendered; (2) that the services were rendered to the defendant; (3) that the services were accepted, used, and enjoyed by the defendant; and (4) that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff, in performing the services, expected to be paid by the defendant. 1, 2, 3, looking good. Hmmm… 4 looks more difficult, especially the “expected to be paid” part. Later on that same page, though, it says > [@](#): > > The doctrine of quantum meruit is contained in court decisions and, to a lesser extent, in statutes. It can be a confusing doctrine: many courts mix quantum meruit with the similar principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. Restitution is a broad term that describes measures taken by a civil or criminal defendant to restore a victim to the status that he enjoyed before the defendant caused a loss or injury. Unjust enrichment is an equitable approach to civil relationships that covers more than just contractual situations. A civil plaintiff may recover under the doctrine of unjust enrichment by showing (1) that the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) that the defendant appreciated or knew of the benefit; and (3) that, under the circumstances, it was unfair for the defendant to accept or retain the benefit without paying for it. Most courts consider quantum meruit a particular form of legal restitution that follows the basic restitutionary principle of preventing unjust enrichment. Those three look arguable. What if France decides to leave it there another hundred years or so? More free storage? > [@](#): > > so that the Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whole to the said King, and to the Crown of Great Britain, and that in the most ample manner and form So the Pope gave up his claim? 😉 Actually, wouldn’t those claims have continued to the U.S. following one of our wars with England? ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/17 "2009-01-31T05:40:39Z")
[in joke for lawyers/law students] Property ownership – it all starts with unsportsmanlike fox hunting in Queens [[ijfl/ls] The law of maritime salvage is a tricky thing. I learned a bit about it in my admiralty law class in law school, but have forgotten all of the details. However, I think I remember some of the basics. Salvage occurs when a vessel is in some maritime peril (e.g. on fire, sinking, on the rocks, etc.) and another person or vessel (the salvor) assists in recovering the vessel, its crew and/or its cargo. When this happens, the salvor can apply to the admiralty court for a salvage award against the vessel’s owner, which is computed based on the value of the vessel, the amount of recovery, the risks faced by the salvor, and other factors. Essentially, the value of the vessel is divided between the salvor and the owner. What I gather is the question here is whether the ship is abandoned property, which would be owned by Michigan, with the value of any property recovered split between the salvor and the state, or whether France still has ownership/control of the ship (though some maritime doctrine with which I am not familiar), in which case the value would be split between the salvor and France. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/18 "2009-01-31T06:05:42Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > What I gather is the question here is whether the ship is abandoned property, which would be owned by Michigan, with the value of any property recovered split between the salvor and the state, . The ASA bars salvage claims. So as the appellate court noted in this case, if the propety is abandoned, the salvor gets nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/19 "2009-01-31T09:35:19Z")
> [@ZenBeam](#): > > From [this site which I have no idea how accurate it is, but which isn’t obviously put up by some nutjob:](http://law.jrank.org/pages/9598/Quantum-Meruit.html): > 1, 2, 3, looking good. Hmmm… 4 looks more difficult, especially the “expected to be paid” part. I don’t think 1 looks good. What service, really? It just lay there in a place no one wanted to use for anything else anyway. 3 is a stretch also. You’re really reaching to say that the French used etc the service when they didn’t even know it was being done for them and didn’t know where the vessel was. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2009, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811/20 "2009-01-31T10:04:44Z")
This is what keeps lawyers in business. Spain has been involved in quite a few disputes of this sort and several issues come up like whether the ship in question was owned by the government of Spain or by private individuals, whether or not the wreck’s title of property may have passed together with Florida to other entities, etc. All this serves so that the modern day pirates can have time to hide as much as they can, the lawyers walk away with a tidy amount and the rightful owners, whoever they may be, get a few trinkets. > [@](#): > > [http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSBNG83740620070712](http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSBNG83740620070712) - Jul 12, 2007 > > Spanish police forcefully boarded a boat operated by a U.S. treasure hunting company on Thursday after it left the British possession of Gibraltar, a witness aboard the boat said. > > Spain says the company, Odyssey Marine Exploration, has treasure that Madrid believes could have been retrieved from Spanish waters or from a Spanish galleon which sank in the Atlantic during the colonial period. > > The Ocean Alert sailed from Gibraltar, on Spain’s southern tip, on Thursday morning and was shadowed by a Spanish Guardia Civil patrol boat for five km (three miles) before it left Gibraltar waters and was forcefully boarded by four officers. > > Ocean Alert had a Spanish lawyer on board and the boat’s captain agreed to be escorted to the port of Algeciras. > > The Ocean Alert is one of three vessels belonging to Odyssey which are subject to a search warrant issued by a Spanish court last month. > > Odyssey Marine Exploration, a Florida-based treasure-hunting company, has said it legally recovered gold and silver coins worth an estimated $500 million from a colonial-era wreck code-named Black Swan at a location in the Atlantic Ocean that it refuses to disclose. > > Spain suspects the company of illegally flying treasure to the United States. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-griffin-martime-salvage-law-question/483811.md?page=2)