Delivery freight to wrong consignee
ASPENPUP
trouble getting it back? If so, what did you have to do.
I'll give you my problem that I have right now. Our billing clerk screwed up
and entered in the wrong consignee name and address on the bill of lading. The
line truck (contracted) picked up the freight and delivered to the (wrong)
address on the BOL. The driver did not bother to make sure company at that
address matched the name on the BOL but that is another issue.
We did not realize the error until our customer traced the shipment. When we
looked into it, we discovered the error. The shippment was shipped out of Los
Angeles and went to Florida.
It took us a while to find a local company to pickup and deliver to the proper
address but we found someone to do it for $175. A bit high but not a whole lot
we could do.The shipment, by the way, was 8 double stacked pallets (4 spots)
valued at almost $40k.
The problem we now have is with the warehouse that received the freight. They
want $50 per pallet PER DAY!! We found out after the second day and they were
requiring $800. We thought this was out of line and sent them $400 (we still
thought that was a bit hit). The sent us a fax and told us it WAS $800 but now
it is $1300.
Do you think local law enforcement would help? No, I spoke with two officers
and they both did not think the warehouse guy is doing anything wrong. In fact,
one of them quoted, "As far as I see it, it is a gift from heaven".
At this point, we are cutting our losses and will pay the $1300 and try to see
if we can recover in court action. Quite frankly, I don't this we will get the
cooperation of any court so it is probably a waste of time.
I'm sure there are some similar nightmares, let's here them? Or, let me know,
if anything, that I can do to this warehouse.
richard
"ASPENPUP" <aspe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030118063835...@mb-fp.aol.com...
$50 a pallet? Post the name of this rip off company so we can stay away from
them.
800 to 1300 bucks? Scam.
Write a formal letter of complaint to your state's attorney general office.
Cite title 49 section 14-103 of the USA code.
This section clearly states that it is basically the duty of the customer to
pay for any and all labor involved.
With a penalty of $10,000 and a possible 30 day shutdown.
(look it up yourself truckinsp).
You could also ask about filing charges of extortion.
I doubt if the local cops would know what to do.
Are you the only one this happens to? Or is this standard procedure with
this company?
Try filing a class action law suit against them.
Furthermore, if any customer ever told me that I'd have to pay that high of
a price to pull the pallets off, the shit would go back to the shipper.
Or I'd find me a nice big 4x4, and a chain.
put the wood up front behind the last two pallets, tie the chain to a pole
outside, and put her in gear.
Truckinsp
>Write a formal letter of complaint to your state's attorney general office.
>Cite title 49 section 14-103 of the USA code.
Yea, that'll get you far.......the real cite is 49 USC 14103 and it only talks
about forcing people to unload against their will....has nothing to do at all
with what accidently unloading at the wrong facility and that facility
insisting on storage and handling fees, no matter how outrageous.....
>This section clearly states that it is basically the duty of the customer to
>pay for any and all labor involved.
>With a penalty of $10,000 and a possible 30 day shutdown.
Yea, but it wasn't delivered to the customer....that's the point Bullis.....but
then of course, you can't understand what you read, can you?
> (look it up yourself truckinsp).
I did....as usual, you earned your nickname...
>You could also ask about filing charges of extortion.
Typical bullis.....SUE, SUE, SUE.....even if you have no grounds......your
attorney must run whenever he sees you coming.....
>I doubt if the local cops would know what to do.
>
This is a civil matter, cops have no reason to be involved.....
>Furthermore, if any customer ever told me that I'd have to pay that high of
>a price to pull the pallets off, the shit would go back to the shipper.
>Or I'd find me a nice big 4x4, and a chain.
>put the wood up front behind the last two pallets, tie the chain to a pole
>outside, and put her in gear.
Oh, you pathetic little man....talking trash again......
Troublemaker
"richard" <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:b0c0i...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> in misc.transport.trucking on Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:37:26 -0600 with
> <20030118110300...@mb-cf.aol.com >
> It's done quite frequently. As you spend your time in a little bitty
chicken
> coop, you don't know the world of trucking as we do.
> Many food warehouses generally hire lumpers who charge for pulling pallets
> off.
> I was at the chicago watermarket and had to pay the man $4 to pull off two
> pallets.
>
You got a deal. $4 is a bargain.
David Ruff
The company that delivered the product is responsible. However, the
warehouse can charge you but should only do it at regular rates. Any judge
will see if the company is tring to be enriched by your clerks mistake. BTW
did you fire the clerk?
~Tony~
> I'll give you my problem that I have right now. Our billing clerk screwed
up
> and entered in the wrong consignee name and address on the bill of lading.
The
> line truck (contracted) picked up the freight and delivered to the (wrong)
> address on the BOL. The driver did not bother to make sure company at that
> address matched the name on the BOL but that is another issue.
I'm confused. You do say that it was billed incorrectly on both issues
(consignee and address), but are you saying that the carrier delivered it to
an address or consignee that was NOT named on the BOL? If this is the case,
you would have some recourse on the carrier for a share of the costs.
In other words, if they delivered the load to the wrong consignee named on
the BOL, then you have no recourse. If you furnish a delivery address, then
the named consignee is irrelevant. In that case, the delivery address
furnished on the BOL is determined to be the place that the carrier is to
deliver it to.
> The problem we now have is with the warehouse that received the freight.
They
> want $50 per pallet PER DAY!! We found out after the second day and they
were
> requiring $800. We thought this was out of line and sent them $400 (we
still
> thought that was a bit hit). The sent us a fax and told us it WAS $800 but
now
> it is $1300.
You did no formal contract of terms up front, by fax? That's a big problem.
You are not going to have much of a leg to stand on. They would not either,
but they have your product. Since posession is "nine tenth's of the law",
they have the upper hand.
> Do you think local law enforcement would help?
Not likely. You're speaking of a matter that they have no enforcement power
to address, unless they have received it by clear and concise terms of
theft.
> No, I spoke with two officers
> and they both did not think the warehouse guy is doing anything wrong. In
fact,
> one of them quoted, "As far as I see it, it is a gift from heaven".
With no contract to enforce, you are left with a matter that would only be
addressed in civil court, that would be open to interpretation by a judge. I
don't see that you would come out very well, under the circumstances.
> At this point, we are cutting our losses and will pay the $1300 and try to
see
> if we can recover in court action. Quite frankly, I don't this we will get
the
> cooperation of any court so it is probably a waste of time.
It's an unfortunate lessen in business. NEVER do anything without a formal
contract that clearly outline charges that will be assessed for services
provided.
> I'm sure there are some similar nightmares, let's here them? Or, let me
know,
> if anything, that I can do to this warehouse.
I had to store a load of chickens in the Bronx in 1987 for two days. The
charges were outrageous, but still short of what a total loss on the load
would have been.
Here's one other thought. Did the warehouse that has the product receive it
and sign a BOL that establishes it as a legal recipient? Or was there a
reconsignment made by the local carrier on the original BOL? I need a bit
more info to determine if there might be a legal loophole that leaves the
actual legal possession of the product in question. Also, WHO selected the
warehouse that now has the product? You or the local carrier?
~Tony~
~Tony~
> The problem we now have is with the warehouse that received the freight.
They
> want $50 per pallet PER DAY!! We found out after the second day and they
were
> requiring $800. We thought this was out of line and sent them $400 (we
still
> thought that was a bit hit). The sent us a fax and told us it WAS $800 but
now
> it is $1300.
>
> Do you think local law enforcement would help? No, I spoke with two
officers
> and they both did not think the warehouse guy is doing anything wrong. In
fact,
> one of them quoted, "As far as I see it, it is a gift from heaven".
>
> At this point, we are cutting our losses and will pay the $1300 and try to
see
> if we can recover in court action. Quite frankly, I don't this we will get
the
> cooperation of any court so it is probably a waste of time.
IF the carrier delivered the product to the INCORRECT ADDRESS, one that was
supplied by you on the BOL, then you have a legitimate claim that can be
filed against the carrier. Now, if they delivered it to the wrong consignee,
but the CORRECT ADDRESS, then you have no recourse on the carrier. Whenever
a delivery address is supplied, that overrules the consignee as the correct
point of delivery.
If the carrier is essentially blameless as outlined above, then this does
not leave you out in the cold. You have a potential case of theft by
deception. The warehouse cannot lay claim to freight that magically appears
at it's doors. They must be able to demonstrate in court that it had every
reason to believe that it was received legitimately.
Was there a contract and or/ purchase agreement between you and the
warehouse for doing business? No. Was there a purchase order or other means
of matching up that load to determine that it indeed belonged there, as if
received for a third party customer? Obviously not.
What about the bill of lading itself? Wrong consignee? Wrong Address? More
evidence that the receiver should have known that this load did not belong
there, and knowingly received it in error, which makes their stance very
dubious.
What would I do. Pay the charges. Get your freight. Then contact your
attorney, and have them contact them. Run a bluff, citing the above. Let
them know in no uncertain terms that unless they voluntarily reduce the
charges to a more reasonable level, you will file charges against them for
violation of Federal laws in regard to interstate shipment, and theft by
deception. If the bluff fails, then do it.
No one has the right to hold freight hostage that they are not entitled to
be in possession of.....period. Charges that they may or may not be entitled
to are a civil matter, and the way I see it, they don't have much of a leg
to stand on, based upon the information you have supplied.
Local law enforcement will not have any enforcement power, unless it was
clearly taken involuntarily. You're in a gray area here. The law is on your
side, but it's still gray.
Of course, if the carrier delivered it to the incorrect address, file a
claim against their bond if they do not voluntarily submit payment, and let
it be their problem. For if this is the case, they clearly are liable.
~Tony~
~Tony~
"richard" the admitted pedophile with no working knowledge of trucking
issues <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:b0bne...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Write a formal letter of complaint to your state's attorney general
office.
> Cite title 49 section 14-103 of the USA code.
> This section clearly states that it is basically the duty of the customer
to
> pay for any and all labor involved.
> With a penalty of $10,000 and a possible 30 day shutdown.
Where in the hell do you get any idea that this applies to his circumstance?
The freight was mis-directed by the shipper. The warehouse is charging
STORAGE FEES for holding his product until it was picked up and taken to the
correct place of delivery.
Your perception skills are out of whack, as usual.
Also, the statute you quote is negated by any contractual agreement that may
exist to the contrary. A receiver may not force a carrier to utilize an
on-site unloading service or be made to pay charges associated with
unloading, UNLESS this is agreed upon when contracting the load from the
shipper or hauling on behalf of the consigne, and said charges will be
reimbursed to the carrier. It is perfectly legal for the consignee to demand
the carrier to unload the trailer themselves if they do not wish to pay for
unloading services at the point of unload.
> (look it up yourself truckinsp).
Look it up yourself. You're the one with the out of whack understanding of
this problem, Pedo...
> Are you the only one this happens to? Or is this standard procedure with
> this company?
> Try filing a class action law suit against them.
How would he know? He's never heard of them before....
> Furthermore, if any customer ever told me that I'd have to pay that high
of
> a price to pull the pallets off, the shit would go back to the shipper.
That's not the issue.......
> Or I'd find me a nice big 4x4, and a chain.
> put the wood up front behind the last two pallets, tie the chain to a pole
> outside, and put her in gear.
Ah.....more examples of your....professionalism?
Idiot......
~Tony~
~Tony~
"richard" the pathetic pedo with perpetual perception problems
<nos...@no.spam> wrote in message news:b0c0i...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> in misc.transport.trucking on Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:37:26 -0600 with
> you didn't read it right.
No....YOU didn't read it right. But what the hell....that's established
already....we'll go after the rest of your stupidity....
> If the driver is to load/unload the freight, he
> must be compensated for it. By the customer.
Sorry...that is not correct. There is absolutely no law whatsoever that says
anything of the sort. Your pay is a matter between you and your employer.
> the driver has the option of saying no. In which case the customer is
> obligated to bear all expenses in the process.
> did you not notice the word "ALL"?
Wrong again Pedo. If there exists a contract between the carrier and the
party that is to pay the freight charges, that states that the carrier will
provide labor to unload the truck, you will unload it. If you refuse to
unload it, the consignee has the right to refuse the freight and suffer no
penalty or recourse. The law states that no carrier shall be made to pay
CHARGES to have a truck unloaded, or be forced to use a service not of their
choosing. They are completely free by law, to provide the labor themselves,
in the absense of a contractual obligation that spells out the terms of
unloading. As to the issue of reimbursement for any unlading charges, that
again is a matter of contractual agreement. If the carrier does not have
this agreed upon up-front with the shipper or freight paying customer, there
is no recourse after-the-fact.
To make it short and sweet.....if you don't want to pay, do it yourself.
> This is not a lawsuit question. It is formal charges.
> Same as being charged with shoplifting in a store by store security.
It's a civil matter. There is no enforcement for title 49 violations, other
than civil court proceeedings. This became the only avenue after
de-regulation.
> Depends on the state involved and state laws.
> Best plan of action would be to consult an attorney over the matter.
There are NO state laws that govern INTERSTATE transportation issues.
Bullis's previous claim....
> >> Furthermore, if any customer ever told me that I'd have to pay that
> >> high of a price to pull the pallets off, the shit would go back to
> >> the shipper.
> >> Or I'd find me a nice big 4x4, and a chain.
> >> put the wood up front behind the last two pallets, tie the chain to a
> >> pole outside, and put her in gear.
> It's done quite frequently.
As frequently as it may be done, a driver loses his job, and the carrier is
shopping for a new customer. There isn't a shipper in this country who would
put up with this crap. You've certainly learned some of the "trucker's
stories" out there......
> As you spend your time in a little bitty chicken
> coop, you don't know the world of trucking as we do.
Gee....you've never been able to demonstrate that you know a thing about the
"world of trucking" either. Your brain seems to retain a great deal of
fantasy as well as outright lies.
> Many food warehouses generally hire lumpers who charge for pulling pallets
> off.
No....the DRIVERS hire the lumpers. Food warehouses merely allow them on the
property to work on behalf of the truckers.
> I was at the chicago watermarket and had to pay the man $4 to pull off two
> pallets.
$4.00 seems cheap to me....a bargain in fact.....at that rate, 24 pallets
would only be $48.00......
In my reefer days (the late 80's), I can remember loads that cost me
$200.00.
~Tony~
~Tony~
"David Ruff" <sword...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:89-dncDe467...@comcast.com...
> BTW did you fire the clerk?
Hey...mistakes happen. One time in a blue moon?.....I can't see giving the
boot would be beneficial. Now, if it happens again in the next century?
That's another thing.....
~Tony~
~Tony~
"richard" <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:b0ega...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> in misc.transport.trucking on Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:19:03 -0600 with
> <pHvW9.43415$Jm2....@news.bellsouth.net >
> Title 49 USC section 14103
> It's not in your handbook.
> There is also a provision in the STAA for it.
>
> Sec. 14103. - Loading and unloading motor vehicles
>
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/14103.html
>
> (a) Shipper Responsible for Assisting. -
>
> Whenever a shipper or receiver of property requires that any person who
owns
> or operates a motor vehicle transporting property in interstate commerce
> (whether or not such transportation is subject to jurisdiction under
> subchapter I of chapter 135) be assisted in the loading or unloading of
such
> vehicle, the shipper or receiver shall be responsible for providing such
> assistance or shall compensate the owner or operator for all costs
> associated with securing and compensating the person or persons providing
> such assistance.
Mr. Pedo, you're talking in circles. You said that the driver must be paid
by the customer for unloading, and that is not correct under any criteria.
YOU are paid by the carrier. Any unloading charges that are paid to the
carrier are a matter of contractual obligation between the freight paying
customer and the carrier. Whether you get a dime of that is between you and
your employer.
No driver is going to walk up to a receiver and demand payment for unloading
the truck. I'm sure you will state that you have done so.....all the
time...eh?
>
> (b) Coercion Prohibited. -
>
> It shall be unlawful to coerce or attempt to coerce any person providing
> transportation of property by motor vehicle for compensation in interstate
> commerce (whether or not such transportation is subject to jurisdiction
> under subchapter I of chapter 135) to load or unload any part of such
> property onto or from such vehicle or to employ or pay one or more persons
> to load or unload any part of such property onto or from such vehicle;
> except that this subsection shall not be construed as making unlawful any
> activity which is not unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act or
the
> Act of March 23, 1932 (47 Stat. 70; 29 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), commonly known
> as the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
>
>
> This clearly defines that the shipper/customer is totally responsible for
> labor costs.
To the CARRIER.....NOT the driver, as you previously said. I've offered
nothing in contradiction. However, if a carrier contractually agrees to
provide labor to unload the truck, as part of the freight rate, with no
accessorial charges being stated, then neither the carrier or driver has any
recourse, after-the-fact. If you arrive at a customer, and find that you
must unload and break down freight, and you desire compensation, your
problem is with your EMPLOYER. Refusing to unload and raising cain with the
consignee is not going to get you a dime from them.
The only time that you have a legal right to refuse to touch freight is if
the BOL has clearly marked on it, "shipper load, consignee unload.", which
would indicate that this was established prior to the carrier being given
the load. It must also be written on the shipper's copies of the BOL.
> It says that if you go to a warehouse and have to hire a lumper, then the
> shipper must compensate the company for hiring the labor.
Ah...now you are changing your story.
> If the warehouse uses it's own employees to do the work, then you are not
> required to pay them a dime.
Tell Kroger that. They have been charging carriers to break down pallets for
years, using their own employees and equipment. The shipper pays the
unloading charges.What are they doing that allows them to do so? The have
contractual agreements with those companies that they buy from. You send us
the product, we'll buy it. You will take care of the carrier out of your own
pocket for any charges we assess them to facilitate the receiving of your
product.
> At least that's my understanding of the wording.
> the warehouse can not force you to pay them anything or the truck does not
> get unloaded.
> that is coercion.
>
> You were saying no such law exists?
"If the driver is to load/unload the freight, he must be compensated for it.
By the customer."
THAT was your statement. You've done a 180 degree turn. Nothing you offer
above substantiates your statement that I challenged.
Try again...bozo.....
~Tony~
~Tony~
"richard" the non-thinking child molester <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:b0eh6...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> in misc.transport.trucking on Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:33:59 -0600 with
> Shit for brains, he siad the clerk made the mistake. The driver delivered
to
> where the bills stated.
"The line truck (contracted) picked up the freight and delivered to the
(wrong) address on the BOL." "The driver did not bother to make sure company
at that address matched the name on the BOL but that is another issue."
Mr. Pedo, your response addressed something that was not even an issue that
he was addressing, and you're going to try to explain to me what he meant?
Permit me to chuckle on that one......
> When you're dispatched, you should at least be told where the load is
going
> to.
> then when you're handed the bills, double check the destination.
> if they don't match, question it before you leave.
????? How in the hell would you know that the destination is wrong? If they
are in the same city, it would seem to me that you might not know to
question whether or not this particular one is wrong. I didn't get any
indication, from his post that the load was supposed to go to a destination
in another city.....
Where do you get YOUR info from?
> also the driver could verify destination by phone numbers.
He didn't mention that phone numbers were an issue, but it's reasonable to
me to assume that if the consignee was wrong, the phone number provided was
also a match to the wrong consignee.
> Your dispatch should give you the consignee's phone to call for
directions.
Which apparently would have been a mistake from the minute the BOL was
generated. Again, all information would have been wrong from the start.
> At that point in time, you have got to ask yourself how come nothing
> matches.
Now, I would know to question something the minute I arrive to an address
that has a name different from what is on the BOL. YOU, on the other hand,
would probably just go in there and argue with them that their name was
wrong, and you are in the right place....
I wonder if the driver was your brother.....doesn't he live down there?
> how do you deliver a truck load of anything to a Post Office Box?
Who's said anything about a PO Box? More of your typical mind, working in
circles. If someone puts a PO Box in the "delivery" address line, the BOL is
incorrectly filled out. The delivery address line must have a physical
street address, to be correct.
Again, you're addressing something that his post did not encompass.....as
usual.
> The mistake was by the clerk. we can not second guess the what if's after
> the fact.
> Possession can also be illegal. The burglar who took your tv has
possession
> of it.
Aren't you getting dizzy? More circular talk....Who's talking about outright
theft? This is a gray area, and NOT a clear case of theft.
> Yes there is a contract to enforce. The warehouse took the items to be
> stored.
Mr. Pedo, go back and read his post. Do you have any idea under the sun,
what a contract is? Do you not understand that the carrier delivered this
load in error to this warehouse? The warehouse who received it did not order
it. They received it, voluntarily, but in error.
> What isn't known, is the rate they would charge until after the items were
> off the truck.
Go back and read what he posted. You're brain is on the highway, but you
took the wrong off-ramp.
It's pointless to try to explain this to you. You're unable to grasp what
was posted.
> Tony Alpro, Barracks lawyer genius grandoise.
Like I give a damn what your pathetic kiddie porn loving ass thinks about
me.
~Tony~
Don Poaps
rule came from. As far as I'm concerned. I'm a Canadian, when I go into
those warehouse, they want me to unload. I have to say sorry Guys. I'm a
Canadian, You have to to talk to INS to get the ok. So Far they said OK
cough up the cash for a lumper.
Well I'm leaseing the Truck now and the find print says, I'm to pay for a
Lumper. It's a catch 22 I guess. If I'm to pay, I guess the customer won't
get his freight. They are people down the street who'll take it.
Don
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"
Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://www.giantcompany.com
"~Tony~" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pHvW9.43415$Jm2....@news.bellsouth.net...
>
> "richard" the pathetic pedo with perpetual perception problems
> <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message news:b0c0i...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > in misc.transport.trucking on Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:37:26 -0600 with
>
> > you didn't read it right.
>
> (SNIPPED}
>
> Sorry...that is not correct. There is absolutely no law whatsoever that
says
> anything of the sort. Your pay is a matter between you and your employer.
>
> {SNIPPED}
>
> Wrong again Pedo. If there exists a contract between the carrier and the
> party that is to pay the freight charges, that states that the carrier
will
> provide labor to unload the truck, you will unload it. If you refuse to
> unload it, the consignee has the right to refuse the freight and suffer no
> penalty or recourse. The law states that no carrier shall be made to pay
> CHARGES to have a truck unloaded, or be forced to use a service not of
their
> choosing. They are completely free by law, to provide the labor
themselves,
> in the absense of a contractual obligation that spells out the terms of
> unloading. As to the issue of reimbursement for any unlading charges, that
> again is a matter of contractual agreement. If the carrier does not have
> this agreed upon up-front with the shipper or freight paying customer,
there
> is no recourse after-the-fact.
>
> To make it short and sweet.....if you don't want to pay, do it yourself.
>
Kato26
The old saying is "possession in 9/10's of the law".
They may be doing you a favor giving it back at all. You can't walk in their
warehouse and point and say "that's mine".
Maybe it's different BtoB, but we had a delivery go to a residential customer-1
piece put inside, then the guy refused to pay--cops came and all...it's in HIS
house, it's HIS. After that-no matter how small the package--pay first then
open the door. (this was in NY)
ASPENPUP
>Date: 1/19/2003 1:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <PxuW9.43169$Jm2....@news.bellsouth.net>
>
>I'm confused. You do say that it was billed incorrectly on both issues
>(consignee and address), but are you saying that the carrier delivered it to
>an address or consignee that was NOT named on the BOL? If this is the case,
>you would have some recourse on the carrier for a share of the costs.
>
>In other words, if they delivered the load to the wrong consignee named on
>the BOL, then you have no recourse. If you furnish a delivery address, then
>the named consignee is irrelevant. In that case, the delivery address
>furnished on the BOL is determined to be the place that the carrier is to
>deliver it to.
>
The carrier delivered to the address on the bill of lading. I realize that this
is the fault of our company and not the carrier who delivered the freight. It
just would have been nice if our error was caught by the driver realizing that
the consignee name did not match the name at that location.
>You did no formal contract of terms up front, by fax? That's a big problem.
>You are not going to have much of a leg to stand on. They would not either,
>but they have your product. Since posession is "nine tenth's of the law",
>they have the upper hand.
No formal contract since we did not know who they were before this incident.
Somehow, I think we can use this against them since we had no agreement for the
unreasonable rate that are charging.
>
>> Do you think local law enforcement would help?
>
>Not likely. You're speaking of a matter that they have no enforcement power
>to address, unless they have received it by clear and concise terms of
>theft.
I have a friend who is a police officer here. I gave him the details and he
gave me an analogy. This is like someone finding a wallet with $10,000 it it.
You have no legal right to the $10,000 nor do you have a right to collect
(demand) $1,000 to return it to the lawful owner.
>
>Here's one other thought. Did the warehouse that has the product receive it
>and sign a BOL that establishes it as a legal recipient? Or was there a
>reconsignment made by the local carrier on the original BOL? I need a bit
>more info to determine if there might be a legal loophole that leaves the
>actual legal possession of the product in question. Also, WHO selected the
>warehouse that now has the product? You or the local carrier?
>
>~Tony~
The company at that address did sign the bill of lading. I have not seen the
POD for that address so I do not know if they included there company name or
just the name of the person who signed.
No, we did not select this warehouse (on purpose). Just to provide a little
more detail how this address occurred, let me explain.
When we bill a shipment, the shipper, the consignee, and bill-to information is
saved on the computer. The next time we bill, you can perform a look-up by
typing in a portion of the name and the computer will retrieve the previous
data entered.
While entering in the consignee info, the clerked tried to look-up ABC AUTO
PARTS but the computer pulled up ABC WAREHOUSE. The clerk only paid attention
to the ABC part and the city and accepted what the computer retrieved. This
information was printed out on the newly generated bill of lading prepared by
our company.
Later, after the poop hit the fan, it was discovered that ABC WAREHOUSE is no
longer at the address. Instead, our friends at RIPOFF WAREHOUSE, INC. are at
that street address.
When (if?) I get the freight back, I'll let you know exactly where this
occurred. I don't want to jeopardize the recovery effort on this so I don't
want to disclose until I have this picked up.
The bottom line is that it was our fault that the freight was delivered to that
address. However, for any honest company who received freight in error, it
would be a simple matter of returning the freight. Most companies would do this
free of charge, some might charge a small fee.
~Tony~
explain why they thought that the freight was theirs to receive. The name
was wrong, and that of a former occupant.
I am no attorney, but I can't see how they can lay claim to freight for one
second, under the circumstances you describe, much less justify the
outrageous charges. It might not do a thing to hurt them, but you might also
try to file a complaint with the BBB, and let them know you've done so. If
they are trying to run a decent business, this situation aside, you might
get them to relent on the charges to have the complaint removed from record.
It's a remote chance, as those who would most likely do business with them,
would not necessarily use the BBB for reference, but you never know.
~Tony~
"ASPENPUP" <aspe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030120013045...@mb-fp.aol.com...
Peter
whether ABC co.is at that address that YOU gave me,or whether ABC co. wanted
it to go to XYZ co. at the address you gave me. We are not mindreaders,
that's why we get BOL's.
Let's say that the driver REALIZED that you gave him the wrong info, and
because he was capable of independent thought, delivered the stuff to ABC
Co. at an address that was not on the BOL. But the freight was SUPPOSED to
have gone ABC co.'s plant in another city?
That's the beauty of being the driver, if you do what you are told, folks
will wonder why you can't think for your self, but if you DO think for
yourself, folks get pissed if the result isn't the one that they would have
liked
Pete
Like a driver, you eat the cost of your mistake, and strive to be damned
sure it doesn't happen again
"ASPENPUP" <aspe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030120013045...@mb-fp.aol.com...
~Tony~
"Peter" <pep...@hurontario.net> wrote in message
news:r%AY9.24410$H67.1...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> You give me an address, I go where you tell me. How the hell do I know
> whether ABC co.is at that address that YOU gave me,or whether ABC co.
wanted
> it to go to XYZ co. at the address you gave me. We are not mindreaders,
> that's why we get BOL's.
Yes, you are right, but I agree with him on one point surrounding this
problem. As a driver, if my BOL has the name and address of where I am to
deliver, and I arrive at the address, but the name of the company is
different, I'm going to call to verify that I am indeed where I am supposed
to be. Legally liable or not, I do not want to deliver to the wrong place of
business.
It's a simple matter of courtesy and respect to your customer to assure with
a simple phone call, that I am aware enough to question something that I
have encountered that creates some sense of doubt.
Let's say that I was this man. I receive a call of inquiry from a
dispatcher, where a driver has contacted him/her and said that he's at the
address on the BOL, but the name of the business is completely different. I
then look up the load and discover the mistake. I immediately offer the
corrected name and address, to where the load is truly supposed to go. I
would then offer a sum of money to pay for the change in delivery and
request that the driver be paid for having the good sense to question this,
in reward, for saving my ass from a simple, yet costly mistake, such as has
been illustrated in this thread.
Next week, when I am going down the list of carriers to select for loads I
have to ship, which carrier am I going to be more likely to call? Let's say
that freight is slow, and I have five carriers vying for one load....who's
more likely to get the offer of the load?
It's called..."customer service".....
> Let's say that the driver REALIZED that you gave him the wrong info,
and
> because he was capable of independent thought, delivered the stuff to ABC
> Co. at an address that was not on the BOL. But the freight was SUPPOSED
to
> have gone ABC co.'s plant in another city?
Geez.....referring to your comments above, how could he have the ability to
realize anything? A phone call placed to the customer can certainly clear up
any doubt or possible misinterpretation, now wouldn't it?
> That's the beauty of being the driver, if you do what you are told,
folks
> will wonder why you can't think for your self, but if you DO think for
> yourself, folks get pissed if the result isn't the one that they would
have
> liked
That's because there are some drivers who do not take the time to review
what they have in front of them, and plan the trip. They don't take the time
to ask questions if something is not clear as a bell to them. They just go
charging on in, with the attitude that if something is not so clear, or
outside of what they feel is their responsibility...."let it be someone
else's problem.
Want proof? How many drivers who work for carriers with drop-and-hook
operations, have hooked to a dropped trailer to discover a blown out or flat
tire on it, or lights that are inoperable? How many times have you hooked to
a trailer that was supposed to have BOL's somewhere for the driver to be
able to deliver it, just to find out that the dolt who dropped it, failed to
leave them with the trailer?
Face it. Not every driver out there has the mindset to really be doing the
job.
> Like a driver, you eat the cost of your mistake, and strive to be damned
> sure it doesn't happen again
Hhhmm....as it appears, this one may very well cost him, with no recourse,
but I'm not sure I agree with your broad brush approach to defining this
situation....but my points are made clear enough to clear up the
differences...
~Tony~
Henry Edwards
title to the goods passed from the shipper to the consignee, as well as
which party had title to the goods in transit. As far as the consignee name
and their address is concerned, these are mitigating circumstances to take
into effect.
Did the party responsible for the freight charges have a contract with the
carrier, or were they operating under the carrier tariff? Did the dollar
value of the shipment exceed the obligatory insurance provided by the rules
tariff? Did the freight deliver in a timely manner?
Aside from the obvious concerns , well expressed in these threads, there are
the legal constraints of the shipment to be considered. If the shipper
would like to review the circumstances with me, please email me at
hedw...@corporate-traffic.com, and I'll be happy to give you my two cents
worth in regards to the claim process.
Glad to see these issues raised through this newsgroup.
"~Tony~" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ekpY9.14900$t51....@news.bellsouth.net...
~Tony~
"Henry Edwards" <hedw...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:WTKY9.25384$267.6...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> What were the FOB terms of the bill of lading?
The shipper was paying the carrier.
> This would determine when
> title to the goods passed from the shipper to the consignee, as well as
> which party had title to the goods in transit. As far as the consignee
name
> and their address is concerned, these are mitigating circumstances to take
> into effect.
Since the shipper made the mistake, and the true consignee did not receive
the goods until much later, after the mistakes were discovered, the shipper
basically shoulders the burden. The warehouse that initially received the
product was not at any time the consignee, yet they received the goods from
the carrier in error.
> Did the party responsible for the freight charges have a contract with the
> carrier, or were they operating under the carrier tariff?
I would assume that they were not under carrier tariff. General freight is
almost always routinely shipped under contract agreement these days.
> Did the dollar
> value of the shipment exceed the obligatory insurance provided by the
rules
> tariff?
Not likely. He did state that it was worth only $40,000.
> Did the freight deliver in a timely manner?
Yes, to a totally unrelated business, at the correct address on the BOL.
> Aside from the obvious concerns , well expressed in these threads, there
are
> the legal constraints of the shipment to be considered. If the shipper
> would like to review the circumstances with me, please email me at
> hedw...@corporate-traffic.com, and I'll be happy to give you my two cents
> worth in regards to the claim process.
I seriously doubt there is a valid claim. The problem came to light when the
shipper asked for a POD, and discovered that it was delivered in error to
the correct address, but the wrong business. The clerk who prepared the BOL
used an auto complete feature in the computer program that streamlined the
process, and listed a partial correct name that was ultimately incorrect,
and failed to notice the similarity in name. The driver delivered to a
business that currently occupied the place of business where the BOL listed,
incorrect company had moved from.
The business that did receive the product decided to hold it ransom for
"storage" charges, to the tune of $1300 for about three days, the way I
understand the poster. It's an interesting case....but the blame seems to
fall back to the shipper, legally.
The driver was not very conscientious in my opinion, but......
~Tony~
Henry Edwards
address, or 2] the right consignee and the wrong address, or 3] the right
consignee at the right address formally occupied by the consignee?
If the terms were prepaid, what was the FOB point? FOB origin, FOB
destination, etc? This could impact when the consignee had to pay the
merchandise invoice from the shipper.
I wish more shippers were under contract. 80% of the shipping public I
initially deal with are under tariff with the LTL carriers they use. On the
TL side, its much higher. I strongly recommend contracts between shippers
and carriers, period.
However, the law is clear about misdeliveries. "The duty of a common
carrier...but also deliver them to the party designated by the terms of the
shipment...A carrier making a delivery to one other than the named consignee
in a straight bill of lading has the burden of proof to establish ownership
and right of possession of the goods at the time of such delivery." [Refg.
Transport v. Hernando Pk., 544 SW 2d 613 (Tenn Sup Ct 1976)]
"Liability of a carrier for loss or damage includes injury from misdelivery.
Misdelivery comes within the phrase "failure to make delivery" in a bill of
lading." [Vogelsang v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 302 F. 2nd 709 at 712 (2nd
Cir. 1962)]
Both quotes taken from Freight Claims in Plain English by William Augello,
SNFFC, Inc., a great resource for anyone in an administrative role in the
freight industry, from the shipping clerk to the CEO.
This scenario opens the carrier up for a claim to pay the $1300 storage fee
incurred while the goods were in the possession of the public warehouse, a
claim for additional freight charges to compensate moving the goods from the
original destination to the proper consignee, a claim at retail for any lost
revenue the consignee suffered during the delta period of
delivery/re-delivery as a result of not having the goods, and a claim for
legal fees incurred by the shipper to recover his losses in this transaction
.
There may even be legal recourse against the warehouse that took possession
of the goods in error. Theft of interstate stolen property can be reported
to the FBI. I'd also like to see a tariff or contract covering the General
Warehouseman's liability for the charges that rang up to $1300. If the
warehouseman raised his rates to make a quick buck, this could be considered
price gouging, and be investigated by that states Attorney General.
It will be interesting to see how this scenario evolves.
Opinions are my own, and not necessarily that of my employer. This posting
originated from my personal email account.
Henry Edwards
"~Tony~" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gMMY9.5321$AN....@news.bellsouth.net...
~Tony~
> So, the bill of lading was prepared to 1] the wrong consignee at the wrong
> address, or 2] the right consignee and the wrong address, or 3] the right
> consignee at the right address formally occupied by the consignee?
As it turned out.....#1
> If the terms were prepaid, what was the FOB point? FOB origin, FOB
> destination, etc? This could impact when the consignee had to pay the
> merchandise invoice from the shipper.
That is not the issue. There is no problem with the intended consgnee who
now has their product. The problem is with the UNINTENDED consignee who did
receive the product, and held it ransom for storage charges when the mistake
was discovered.
> I wish more shippers were under contract. 80% of the shipping public I
> initially deal with are under tariff with the LTL carriers they use. On
the
> TL side, its much higher. I strongly recommend contracts between shippers
> and carriers, period.
This is the way that LTL carriers like it......
> However, the law is clear about misdeliveries. "The duty of a common
> carrier...but also deliver them to the party designated by the terms of
the
> shipment...A carrier making a delivery to one other than the named
consignee
> in a straight bill of lading has the burden of proof to establish
ownership
> and right of possession of the goods at the time of such delivery."
[Refg.
> Transport v. Hernando Pk., 544 SW 2d 613 (Tenn Sup Ct 1976)]
>
> "Liability of a carrier for loss or damage includes injury from
misdelivery.
> Misdelivery comes within the phrase "failure to make delivery" in a bill
of
> lading." [Vogelsang v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 302 F. 2nd 709 at 712 (2nd
> Cir. 1962)]
>
> Both quotes taken from Freight Claims in Plain English by William Augello,
> SNFFC, Inc., a great resource for anyone in an administrative role in the
> freight industry, from the shipping clerk to the CEO.
With the carrier delivering to the address on the BOL, it does make it very
hard to be squarely saddled with a "misdelivery"....
> This scenario opens the carrier up for a claim to pay the $1300 storage
fee
> incurred while the goods were in the possession of the public warehouse, a
> claim for additional freight charges to compensate moving the goods from
the
> original destination to the proper consignee, a claim at retail for any
lost
> revenue the consignee suffered during the delta period of
> delivery/re-delivery as a result of not having the goods, and a claim for
> legal fees incurred by the shipper to recover his losses in this
transaction
Which is why I recommended him to explore the filing of a claim, but he
should not do this without advice. The shipper made the mistake, in part,
and the carrier driver shared a remote part of the blame, in not realizing
that the name at that address did not match what was on the BOL.
A reasonable argument can be easily made, by the carrier, that when goods
are transfered to a warehouse, it is not unusual in some circumstances that
a warehouse can have many customers who store with these warehouses, and the
name on the bills will often reflect the consignee name, but the address of
a warehouse contracted to store goods for the consignee.
This is a problem of shippers not preparing a BOL correctly to reflect all
parties or in using a simple c/o in front of the intended recipient, when
there is a third party involved.
> There may even be legal recourse against the warehouse that took
possession
> of the goods in error. Theft of interstate stolen property can be
reported
> to the FBI. I'd also like to see a tariff or contract covering the
General
> Warehouseman's liability for the charges that rang up to $1300. If the
> warehouseman raised his rates to make a quick buck, this could be
considered
> price gouging, and be investigated by that states Attorney General.
>
> It will be interesting to see how this scenario evolves.
There again is a problem where there may be no recourse. The warehouse
involved was apparently not in the business of storing goods for anyone.
They were a warehouse that apparently was associated in a business outside
of Interstate commerce, which again makes me wonder why they accepted the
pallets of material to begin with.
My suggestion was to seek an attorney to do the research to see who might be
liable, and where he might start. Under the circumstances, the warehouse
that initially took the product had no reason to think it belonged there,
based upon everything he offered, which raises a question of theft by taking
or deception charges being a high possibility, but it will have to be placed
in competent hands to be able to pursue it.
~Tony~