Small claims suits...

M

Manitoba Moose

Member
Jul 27, 2009
322
0
16
Otterburne, MB
10
Hey guys.

Just want to know if the Bill of Lading Act applies to a load that was brokered out?

The BOL Act is specific and reads:

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 upon, or by reason of the consignment or endorsement, has and is vested with all rights of action, and is subject to the same liabilities in respect of the goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with the consignee or endorsee. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.10, s. 7 (1).

That being said, if you brokered a load to a carrier, the carrier signed the BOL, not you. So, can you go after a shipper or reciever if your company did not sign the BOL, the actual carrier did?
 
Not quite sure what you're after here Manitoba Moose. The B/L is a contract between the shipper and the carrier. As a broker, you are acting as a middle man, arranging the contract between your customer the shipper, and the carrier. You have a different type of contract with the carrier because you have agreed to pay him as per the conditions of your load confirmation. The broker does not have a "vested interest" as far as the B/L is concerned because he does not take possession of the goods and is not a party to the contract. Perhaps you could be a little more specific?
 
a little more explanation...

This is what happened:

Took a load from a broker (ETS) that took a walk with our cash. One piece was too big for our equipment so they asked if we could find someone to just take that one piece and we would take the other. That was no problem as we are also licensed and bonded brokers so, we agreed.

After all is delivered and the broker is long gone, we are now stuck with one BOL signed by our company and one BOL signed by the other carrier that took the other piece.

So, I'm in court this morning going after the shipper and yes, you guessed it, another broker Freightplus USA (found out after the fact that this was double brokered to us).

So the judge says yes to our demand for the part we hauled but reserved her decision on the one the other carrier hauled because we were not the company to actually sign the BOL. She needs to check further into this.

I explained the Laws of Agency to her where in the court case Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v BPB Westroc Inc

The judge concludes:

[35] Under the general principles of agency and by operation of law, non-payment by an agent is deemed non-payment by the principal. Westroc must be taken to have assumed the risk of paying twice if the party it relied upon to perform an essential function of its export program abused its position of trust by converting freight monies received for a designated purpose for its own use.

Also, the confirmation the carrier signed clearly states that he was to load as our company so, contractual law now applies as well...

Where do we stand on this portion?
 
Based on these facts, I would think that the carrier who hauled the other piece should also go after the shipper directly just as you did. If they are reluctant to do so, the onus would be on you as the broker, to pay them the agreed amount. This would then mean that you, as the broker, would have to sue the shipper for non-payment of your invoice. You would have to provide a copy of the B/L showing the carrier, a copy of your invoice to the shipper, a copy of the carrier's invoice to you and a copy of the cheque you wrote paying the carrier for his services. In retrospect, it might have been better had you prepared your own Bill of Lading for the other piece showing you as the carrier and the other carrier as your "line-haul partner". Hindsight - perfect!
 
You should have listed both your company and the other carrier as plaintiff's in the suit. Then had the carrier sign a letter for you to act as their agent on the matter. This way you both get paid. The way it looks know the carrier will have to make their own claim in court if you want satisfaction.
 
The carrier we hired was paid a long time ago by us...

I guess the guestion again is, does the BOL Act apply to brokers who do not get paid since the broker didn't actually sign the BOL that the product was shipped on.
 
Since the broker is not a party to the B/L, it does not apply directly. You have to show the court that you entered into an arrangement with the shipper to provide transport. As well, provide the details of this arrangement such as your load confirmation to the carrier, the invoice from the carrier to you and your payment to the carrier. You are going after the shipper for non-payment of your invoice for the services you provided. The B/L is a contract between the shipper and the carrier. Your contract is between the shipper and yourself. It is my opinion that the broker should never sign the B/L. You would be exposing yourself to terms and conditions that you would have no control over.
 
Thanks for all the feedback.

The judge has reserved her decision until January so I will update when we find out what she decides. It will be interesting to know her thought patterns regarding this issue and hopefully not be a case that will need to be appealed.

She did state in court that the portion that was signed by our driver was an absolute and she will be ruling in our favor on that but it's the broker portion that will need some thought.

Sitting here with crossed fingers lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom