Claiming Freight from Shipper - Bills of Lading Act - Case Precedence? Help

K

kewilo

New Member
Oct 16, 2010
4
0
1
1
I need assistance looking for court cases that have successfully ruled
in favour of carriers claiming freight charges from shippers as per
the Bills of Lading Act.
I have not and am unsure of how/where to find proper court rulings.

My case is fairly straight forward..
Shipper used broker, broker founds us to move freight.
Shipper paid broker, broker disappeared.
We delivered freight without any issue.

So you don't think this is a completely helpless and innocent
shipper: We warned them there was a problem on our side
regarding contacting broker for payment and were ignored.. also
shipper was paying broker $2500 for shipment from ON to CA and
also thought it was normal when the broker offered further discount
afterward. (I assume in order to get paid quicker)

Judge currently requires us to make submission regarding why
shipper is liable for freight charges based specifically on the BOL Act
I will need to cite similar cases that have already set the precedence.

Does anyone know of specific cases that meet this criteria or know
how i can best search for such?

Any other advice or services offered will also be welcome.

Thank You
 
R.S., c. B-6, s. 1.

Marginal note:Right of consignee or endorsee

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.

R.S., c. B-6, s. 2.
 
Have you tried threatening the shipper that you would be billing their customer in the US for the freight and that you were not paid for your service? Curious to know who the broker would be?
 
Maggs said:
R.S., c. B-6, s. 1.

Marginal note:Right of consignee or endorsee

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.

R.S., c. B-6, s. 2.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is correct Maggs..
However, judge wants us to argue how this applies in our case therefore I strongly need to cite precedence.
I did think it would be straightforward.. guess the judge wants more effort and detail.
 
keyfactor1 said:
Have you tried threatening the shipper that you would be billing their customer in the US for the freight and that you were not paid for your service? Curious to know who the broker would be?
Click to expand...


I hadn't contacted their US customer, but during pre-trial shipper was actually said to the judge that it was the liability of the consignee and not theirs
The broker was Breakaway Logistics, no longer around. I believe I previous posted on them.

Still need to find precedence from previous court rulings, so if anyone can help please let me know...
 
Reach out to Scamchaser, who is a member of this forum. He is an excellent paralegal who specializes in transportation. Even if you don't hire him, a few minutes of consultation with him, is money well spent.
 
try doing a search on Sears, I can recall a situation where they had to pay twice, and I believe Canada Safeway found themselves in a similar situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a very interesting situation; please keep us posted with the outcome of your endeavor. It happens all the time that a consignee pays for the freight charges. Does this leave a shipper off the hook if carrier cannot collect from consignee – broker arrangement? I have not been a victim of this kind of fraudulent activity YET, but that’s only because I try to work as much as possible with customers that I have thoroughly checked – sometimes that is not 100% bulletproof either. However, the future remains gloom in this area, and I could see this happening to anybody. There is a constant push to transport freight for less, and in order to achieve this multiple load brokers are employed to find the cheapest truck. This translates into a disaster for a less stringent carrier more often than not when dishonest individuals are involved. The more we all know about handling this kind of situations the better off the industry is in the long run.
 
FYI - Shipper may be correct if Section 7 of BOL was completed. In that instance Consignee would be liable and Carrier would have to COLLECT from same. That being said, e-mail SCAMCHASER as he is a qualified, transportation savvy, paralegal that specialises in these matters.
 
There has been a lot of misunderstanding regarding various transportation acts and their application.

The Federal Bill of lading Act and the Ontario Mercantile Law Amendment Act draw the consignee into the transportation contract as if he were the shipper, and affixes the same benefits and obligations as if the consignee were the shipper. It does not mean that if a 3rd party were involved, these Acts give the carrier the right to go after the shipper. It does mean that if the shipment was prepaid, and the only parties were the shipper, carrier, and consignee, that the carrier could look to the consignee for his freight charges if the shipper failed to pay.

The Section 7 matter is different, and is generally found on US Bills of Lading. On a collect shipment from the US to Canada (and of course within the US), unless the shipper signs the Section 7 "box", the carrier could go after the shipper for the unpaid freight charges by the consignee. Though I have not come across this interpretation yet, a number of large US companies require Canadian suppliers to use the "US" bill of lading, and therefore might make the Canadian shipper liable for the unpaid freight charges of the US consignee, if the box had not been signed.

Section 7 does not work in reverse; i.e. it does not extend liability to the consignee if the shipper does not pay.
 
We have had this issue once and we sent a very professional letter to both shipper and consignee stating the legislation and got paid, the biggest reason is it seems Canadians do not take legal action that seriously but if a US company is involved the usually go bat s--t crazy and you get paid by whoever was suppose to pay you in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still cannot understand how this is legal.

Im a broker...I ask carrier A to pick up and deliver goods. HE gives it carrier B, without my knowledge.
Carrier B does NOT put his name on the Bill of lading as having moved the goods (which I think is very deceitful), yet he comes after me (or my customer) when Carrier A doesnt pay him.

I think anyone that is commissioned to move goods should have to put his name and MC on the Bill of Lading...for all to see!.....or he has no claim for payment.

When a carrier takes double brokered freight he deserves what he gets...or doesnt get in the case of payment.

What if Carrier B was on my DNU list? I am paying yet I dont have the right to know who is moving the freight??

Seems very one sided to me...
 
tansbrkr maybe you should do your research a little on the carriers you hire and only work with reputable carriers that DO NOT DOUBLE BROKER!
 
Couple of things:

1) The carrier that ACTUALLY does the move ALWAYS has the legal right to get paid, regardless if they are listed on the BOL or not.
2) How do you know Carrier B was informed it was double brokered?
3) You need to know who you are doing business with....your anger should be directed at Carrier A for double brokering....no one else.
my 2.5 cents worth......
 
transbrkr said:
When a carrier takes double brokered freight he deserves what he gets...or doesnt get in the case of payment.

What if Carrier B was on my DNU list? I am paying yet I dont have the right to know who is moving the freight??
Click to expand...

Carriers - in most cases - have no idea that the freight is double brokered. Hence why the term "double broker" has negative and unethical connotations to it. And the term usually results in non payment. But not always....

As the broker - you need to stay on top of exactly "WHO" is moving your customer's freight. No matter how many times the freight is double or tripled brokered - there is always a paper trail. And when you get into these kind of non payment jams - the trail always leads somewhere....

Carriers hold the original bill of lading - that is their protection and who courts recognizes as the ones with "the right" of carriage. The carrier took the goods - delivered - and completed the service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom