1. LRC and NA argued that because Met was not required to clean up, they should not...
Question:
2. Look at the structure of CERCLA. Why do you think the current landowner is required to pay for clean up even where they are found not to have contributed to the disposal of the waste initially?
3. CERCLA does recognize the innocent landowner exception, but restricts it to the situation where hazardous waste deposited on a landowner’s property is by (1) an act of God; (2) an act of war; or (3) an act of a third party that has no contractual privity (relationship) to the defendant. None of these exceptions fit Met. Are these restrictions too narrow? Should a current landowner be responsible for cleanup if he had no notice of the presence of the waste and was not able to find out before purchasing the land? What would be the problem with a known or should have known standard here?
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Step by Step Answer:
Related Book For
The Legal Ethical and Regulatory Environment of Business in a Diverse Society
ISBN: 978-0073524924
1st edition
Authors: Dawn Bennett Alexander, Linda Harrison
Question Posted: