Legal ruling over forwarder T&Cs in emails may become a global precedent
A court in Australia has ruled that a freight forwarder’s terms and conditions (T&Cs) can ...
FDX: ABOUT USPS PRIVATISATIONFDX: CCO VIEWFDX: LOWER GUIDANCE FDX: DISRUPTING AIR FREIGHTFDX: FOCUS ON KEY VERTICALFDX: LTL OUTLOOKGXO: NEW LOW LINE: NEW LOW FDX: INDUSTRIAL WOESFDX: HEALTH CHECKFDX: TRADING UPDATEWMT: GREEN WOESFDX: FREIGHT BREAK-UPFDX: WAITING FOR THE SPINHON: BREAK-UP ALLUREDSV: BREACHING SUPPORTVW: BOLT-ON DEALAMZN: TOP PICK
FDX: ABOUT USPS PRIVATISATIONFDX: CCO VIEWFDX: LOWER GUIDANCE FDX: DISRUPTING AIR FREIGHTFDX: FOCUS ON KEY VERTICALFDX: LTL OUTLOOKGXO: NEW LOW LINE: NEW LOW FDX: INDUSTRIAL WOESFDX: HEALTH CHECKFDX: TRADING UPDATEWMT: GREEN WOESFDX: FREIGHT BREAK-UPFDX: WAITING FOR THE SPINHON: BREAK-UP ALLUREDSV: BREACHING SUPPORTVW: BOLT-ON DEALAMZN: TOP PICK
With the December deadline for 100% screening of US-bound cargo looming, this strongly worded op-ed piece argues that US Congress has done nobody – including those worried about the security of the US – any favours by insisting that the TSA meet the requirement. But it could have been worse: because while the text of the legislation appears to be talking about 100% scanning, 100% screening means something else entirely – screening can also mean adopting a risk-based, intelligence approach without having to physically inspect every item of cargo.
Comment on this article