Are shippers in Canada liable by the actions of their agents (load brokers) when they fail to pay the carrier that delivered their freight?

[onmetro550]

What happen when a load broker start falling behind or default in payments to carriers that actually moved their customers freight, are shippers liable for paying carriers the freight bill. Are carriers able to contact shipper demanding payment for freight bills?

 

[LrgCar]

What happen when a load broker start falling behind or default in payments to carriers that actually moved their customers freight, are shippers liable for paying carriers the freight bill. Are carriers able to contact shipper demanding payment for freight bills?

Yes, bill of loading act. The carrier can come after the shipper.

 

[loaders]

If you have found yourself in a position where a load broker is refusing to pay you for your services, contact a paralegal who is experienced in transportation. Yes, there is the Bill of Lading Act, however each case is unique and each judge will interpret the Act as they see fit. In other words, there is no “one size fits all” result. If the amount is more than you are willing to write off, get some professional help.

 

[SCAM CHASER]

When the Bill of Lading Act was originally introduced, the legislators never envisioned the concept of the brokerage industry. Simply stated, the purpose of the Act was afford the consignee the same rights and obligations as if he were the shipper (consignor). This was necessary because the BOL had only been signed between the consignor and the carrier. The Act drew the consignee into the BOL and its related condition even though they were not a signing party to the contract (BOL).
Here's the actual clause.......

"2. Every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading, and every endorsee of a bill of lading to whom the property in the goods therein mentioned passes on or by reason of the consignment or endorsement, has and is vested with all rights of action and is subject to all liabilities in respect of those goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself."

Clause 3 reads

3. Nothing in this Act prejudices or affects
(a) any right of stoppage in transit;
(b) any right of an unpaid vendor under the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec;
(c) any right to claim freight against the original shipper or owner; or
(d) any liability of the consignee or endorsee by reason or in consequence of his being the consignee or endorsee, or of his receipt of the goods by reason or in consequence of the consignment or endorsement."

So from an unpaid freight charge standpoint, the BOL Act only applies to to "prepaid" shipments where the shipper has not paid the carrier. The consignee is then liable for payment per Clause 2 above. Use of the BOL Act to try and get a shipper or consignee to pay the carrier when there was a defaulting broker involved, is not how the Act reads.

Can Clause 3(c) be effective in collecting from the shipper; possibly, but if the shipper (or consignee) has already paid the broker, it's then a toss up. Also note that in Quebec, if a party has already paid the freight charges to someone, the Quebec Civil Code prohibits a different party from seeking payment again.

 

[onmetro550]

If you have found yourself in a position where a load broker is refusing to pay you for your services, contact a paralegal who is experienced in transportation. Yes, there is the Bill of Lading Act, however each case is unique and each judge will interpret the Act as they see fit. In other words, there is no “one size fits all” result. If the amount is more than you are willing to write off, get some professional help.

Thanks for your input, I'm very thankfully, so far contacting the shipper has worked 100% for me, most of them with a little pressure or a veiled warning that I'll sue them, then they go and contact the broker or the carrier who owns the money and they pay.

 

[artmax]

When the Bill of Lading Act was originally introduced, the legislators never envisioned the concept of the brokerage industry. Simply stated, the purpose of the Act was afford the consignee the same rights and obligations as if he were the shipper (consignor). This was necessary because the BOL had only been signed between the consignor and the carrier. The Act drew the consignee into the BOL and its related condition even though they were not a signing party to the contract (BOL).
Here's the actual clause.......

"2. Every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading, and every endorsee of a bill of lading to whom the property in the goods therein mentioned passes on or by reason of the consignment or endorsement, has and is vested with all rights of action and is subject to all liabilities in respect of those goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself."

Clause 3 reads

3. Nothing in this Act prejudices or affects
(a) any right of stoppage in transit;
(b) any right of an unpaid vendor under the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec;
(c) any right to claim freight against the original shipper or owner; or
(d) any liability of the consignee or endorsee by reason or in consequence of his being the consignee or endorsee, or of his receipt of the goods by reason or in consequence of the consignment or endorsement."

So from an unpaid freight charge standpoint, the BOL Act only applies to to "prepaid" shipments where the shipper has not paid the carrier. The consignee is then liable for payment per Clause 2 above. Use of the BOL Act to try and get a shipper or consignee to pay the carrier when there was a defaulting broker involved, is not how the Act reads.

Can Clause 3(c) be effective in collecting from the shipper; possibly, but if the shipper (or consignee) has already paid the broker, it's then a toss up. Also note that in Quebec, if a party has already paid the freight charges to someone, the Quebec Civil Code prohibits a different party from seeking payment again.

Laminating this and framing it

 

[onmetro550]

Laminating this and framing it

Laminating this and framing it

Laminating this and framing it

When the Bill of Lading Act was originally introduced, the legislators never envisioned the concept of the brokerage industry. Simply stated, the purpose of the Act was afford the consignee the same rights and obligations as if he were the shipper (consignor). This was necessary because the BOL had only been signed between the consignor and the carrier. The Act drew the consignee into the BOL and its related condition even though they were not a signing party to the contract (BOL).
Here's the actual clause.......

"2. Every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading, and every endorsee of a bill of lading to whom the property in the goods therein mentioned passes on or by reason of the consignment or endorsement, has and is vested with all rights of action and is subject to all liabilities in respect of those goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself."

Clause 3 reads

3. Nothing in this Act prejudices or affects
(a) any right of stoppage in transit;
(b) any right of an unpaid vendor under the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec;
(c) any right to claim freight against the original shipper or owner; or
(d) any liability of the consignee or endorsee by reason or in consequence of his being the consignee or endorsee, or of his receipt of the goods by reason or in consequence of the consignment or endorsement."

So from an unpaid freight charge standpoint, the BOL Act only applies to to "prepaid" shipments where the shipper has not paid the carrier. The consignee is then liable for payment per Clause 2 above. Use of the BOL Act to try and get a shipper or consignee to pay the carrier when there was a defaulting broker involved, is not how the Act reads.

Can Clause 3(c) be effective in collecting from the shipper; possibly, but if the shipper (or consignee) has already paid the broker, it's then a toss up. Also note that in Quebec, if a party has already paid the freight charges to someone, the Quebec Civil Code prohibits a different party from seeking payment again.

Happy New Year, I was going through the replies to my tread, thanks for sending your input which is very valuable to be used a pressure tool when contacting shippers for their load brokers unpaid freight bills, in this case I'm dealing with a $600 LTL from October, galaxy was the carrier who tendered us the freight, these guys are the worst of the worse, we still haven't received their famous travelling cheque, even after they said many times that it was in the mail. I already contacted the consignee and the original broker Trans Global from BC who also said he was going to pay us, he brought himself into the picture but no payment so far, tomorrow I'm sending a final notice to the consignee and if we don't get the payment in 24 hours I'm filling a small claim court claim for payment, at this point I want that note on the carrier credit report for non payment for that winning the lotto. Thanks for your help.

 

[frtbrkr]

Happy New Year, I was going through the replies to my tread, thanks for sending your input which is very valuable to be used a pressure tool when contacting shippers for their load brokers unpaid freight bills, in this case I'm dealing with a $600 LTL from October, galaxy was the carrier who tendered us the freight, these guys are the worst of the worse, we still haven't received their famous travelling cheque, even after they said many times that it was in the mail. I already contacted the consignee and the original broker Trans Global from BC who also said he was going to pay us, he brought himself into the picture but no payment so far, tomorrow I'm sending a final notice to the consignee and if we don't get the payment in 24 hours I'm filling a small claim court claim for payment, at this point I want that note on the carrier credit report for non payment for that winning the lotto. Thanks for your help.

Hi.

What was the Origin/Destination Province/ST for the shipment in question?

 

[onmetro550]

Hi.

What was the Origin/Destination Province/ST for the shipment in question?

Dansville, VA to Mississauga, ON, we dropped at Galaxy and they delivered it to Calgary, AB

 

[frtbrkr]

When the Bill of Lading Act was originally introduced, the legislators never envisioned the concept of the brokerage industry. Simply stated, the purpose of the Act was afford the consignee the same rights and obligations as if he were the shipper (consignor). This was necessary because the BOL had only been signed between the consignor and the carrier. The Act drew the consignee into the BOL and its related condition even though they were not a signing party to the contract (BOL).
Here's the actual clause.......

"2. Every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading, and every endorsee of a bill of lading to whom the property in the goods therein mentioned passes on or by reason of the consignment or endorsement, has and is vested with all rights of action and is subject to all liabilities in respect of those goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself."

Clause 3 reads

3. Nothing in this Act prejudices or affects
(a) any right of stoppage in transit;
(b) any right of an unpaid vendor under the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec;
(c) any right to claim freight against the original shipper or owner; or
(d) any liability of the consignee or endorsee by reason or in consequence of his being the consignee or endorsee, or of his receipt of the goods by reason or in consequence of the consignment or endorsement."

So from an unpaid freight charge standpoint, the BOL Act only applies to to "prepaid" shipments where the shipper has not paid the carrier. The consignee is then liable for payment per Clause 2 above. Use of the BOL Act to try and get a shipper or consignee to pay the carrier when there was a defaulting broker involved, is not how the Act reads.

Can Clause 3(c) be effective in collecting from the shipper; possibly, but if the shipper (or consignee) has already paid the broker, it's then a toss up. Also note that in Quebec, if a party has already paid the freight charges to someone, the Quebec Civil Code prohibits a different party from seeking payment again.

Hi.

The Quebec law protecting the paying party applies when the shipper is in based in QC? receiver? Load Broker?

If a QC LB hires a ON based carrier to P/U a load from NS and delivering it to BC and the customer is based on TX. The QC based LB was paid in full by the TX based customer but the ON based Carrier wasn't paid. Which provincial law applies?

First Scenario

QC, LB location
ON, Carrier Location
NS, shipper location
BC, consignee location
TX, Customer location.

Kindly advise.

Second scenario

If a QC LB hires a ON based carrier to P/U a load from NS and delivering it to BC and the customer is based on TX. The ON based Carrier doubled Brokered it to a SK based Carrier. The QC based LB was paid in full by the TX based customer which in turn paid the ON based Carrier (Foolishly thinking they actually hauled it). but the Actual SK based Carrier never got paid by the DBL scum). Which provincial law applies?

QC, LB location
ON, Carrier (DBL Broker) Location
SK, Actual Carrier location
NS, shipper location
BC, consignee location
TX, Customer location.

 

[frtbrkr]

Dansville, VA to Mississauga, ON, we dropped at Galaxy and they delivered it to Calgary, AB

So you dropped it off at Galaxy's' dock in GTA, which consignee did you contacted and what gives you the right to do since you didn't deliver it to any consignee? Your Consignee is Galaxy Freight Lines

 

[onmetro550]

So you dropped it off at Galaxy's' dock in GTA, which consignee did you contacted and what gives you the right to do since you didn't deliver it to any consignee? Your Consignee is Galaxy Freight Lines

What is important it the freight last consignee listed on the B/L not Galaxy, Galaxy used us to advance the freight for a matter of convenience so they don't count as the actual consignee. Scam Chaser sent us and excerpt of the Bill of Lading Act (I'm very thankful for it) which I shared with a transportation lawyer and she said that the consignee in the B/L can be held liable for payment of the freight since they tendered the shipment.

 

[frtbrkr]

What is important it the freight last consignee listed on the B/L not Galaxy, Galaxy used us to advance the freight for a matter of convenience so they don't count as the actual consignee. Scam Chaser sent us and excerpt of the Bill of Lading Act (I'm very thankful for it) which I shared with a transportation lawyer and she said that the consignee in the B/L can be held liable for payment of the freight since they tendered the shipment. I'm assuming that you are related to Galaxy, is that correct?

 

[frtbrkr]

Nope, not related.

As Brokers we face this issues here and there and i wanted to understand how it works.

Our relationship with Galaxy is that we used them for certain lanes.

my question to you is?

Is it worth the legal fees to collect $600.00?
Why wont you rather go after the Shipper in VA?
What would you if the ultimate consignee is Amazon/Wal-mart, how can you collect the unpaid freight charges?

 

[onmetro550]

You bet it is, at least with these guys, they are arrogant with a mob mentality and they think they can get away with anything, so yes, it's worth. Is this case we are going after the consignee in Calgary because they ordered a broker to move this load, they in turn gave it to galaxy, for that simple fact I'm not going after the shipper since it was a p/u in their dock where they didn't have anything to do with the transportation. Regarding your other questions regarding Amazon or Walmart, probably a lot of people in this site can give you better advice than myself.

 

[frtbrkr]

You bet it is, at least with these guys, they are arrogant with a mob mentality and they think they can get away with anything, so yes, it's worth. Is this case we are going after the consignee in Calgary because they ordered a broker to move this load, they in turn gave it to galaxy, for that simple fact I'm not going after the shipper since it was a p/u in their dock where they didn't have anything to do with the transportation. Regarding your other questions regarding Amazon or Walmart, probably a lot of people in this site can give you better advice than myself.

Make sense.

as a Broker by self i feel bad for the Broker in BC. They couldn't have done anything to prevent this from happening. The did their due diligence, arranged for transport using a legitimate company, paid Galaxy with no way of knowing they a portion of the trip was assigned to another Carrier.

The same with receiver, they did nothing wrong here.

The only 2 parties (beside Galaxy) which could have maybe avoiding it are:

- Your company for taking the load, knowing that Galaxy is double Brokering it.
- The shipper for loaded freight in a truck different what what the LB told them to load it in (that's if the LB even advised them).

 

[MikeJr]

My memory is foggy at best after a week off and the wife requiring daily mimosas with brunch. Doesn't the BOL Act indicate that a carrier is able to "pursue any party listed on the BOL" for compensation? This would be any of Shipper, Consignee and Third Party (when listed correctly).

Keep well,
Mike

 

[frtbrkr]

My memory is foggy at best after a week off and the wife requiring daily mimosas with brunch. Doesn't the BOL Act indicate that a carrier is able to "pursue any party listed on the BOL" for compensation? This would be any of Shipper, Consignee and Third Party (when listed correctly).

Keep well,
Mike

According to @SCAM CHASER, QC is immured from this.

 

[boxermom]

Make sense.

as a Broker by self i feel bad for the Broker in BC. They couldn't have done anything to prevent this from happening. The did their due diligence, arranged for transport using a legitimate company, paid Galaxy with no way of knowing they a portion of the trip was assigned to another Carrier.

The same with receiver, they did nothing wrong here.

The only 2 parties (beside Galaxy) which could have maybe avoiding it are:

- Your company for taking the load, knowing that Galaxy is double Brokering it.
- The shipper for loaded freight in a truck different what what the LB told them to load it in (that's if the LB even advised them).

Why can't brokers provide the trucking company name, truck number, and driver name they sold the load to, to the shippers and receivers pertaining to that load? If there was more communication between Brokers and shippers/receivers it may limit the double brokering? Just my thought.

 

[frtbrkr]

Why can't brokers provide the trucking company name, truck number, and driver name they sold the load to, to the shippers and receivers pertaining to that load? If there was more communication between Brokers and shippers/receivers it may limit the double brokering? Just my thought.

Some do, some don't.

that's why i say that the shipper maybe at blame if the info was conveyed to them. Going after the receiver or the LB is unfair (although legal).

The bigger issue is that the actual carrier knows they are assisting in DBL brokering. they are told by the DBL broker to ID at pickup with their name and on Cross-Border freight they are told not to clear with their own PAPS/PARS numbers.

No one seems to care, going after the honest parties seems to be the easy way out of a self-created mess.