B-135992, DEC. 14, 1961
Highlights
TO CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 17. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO YOUR CLAIM AND THE BASIS FOR OUR ACTION WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISIONS OF SEPTEMBER 15 AND OCTOBER 5. WITH THE LATTER DECISION YOU WERE FURNISHED A COPY OF A FIRST INDORSEMENT DATED MARCH 25. IN WHICH IT IS UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT THIS SHIPMENT WAS TENDERED TO YOUR COMPANY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FREIGHT TRAILER WOULD BE LOADED ON YOUR EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTED ACCORDINGLY. THAT IF TOW AWAY SERVICE WAS REQUIRED. WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED. THAT THE REASON TOW AWAY SERVICE VIA DEALERS WAS NOT UTILIZED WAS THAT THE DISTANCE INVOLVED WAS CONSIDERED TOO GREAT FOR THAT TYPE SERVICE AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT.
B-135992, DEC. 14, 1961
TO CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORPORATION:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 17, 1961, ACKNOWLEDGED AUGUST 24, 1961, REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION, B 135992, DATED OCTOBER 5, 1960, WHICH REAFFIRMED A PRIOR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1960, SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM 058-8, PRO. 945301, FOR $458.07 ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES ON A SHIPMENT OF ONE TRAILER FROM WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA, TO BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS, UNDER BILL OF LADING AF -5599511, DATED MAY 3, 1956.
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO YOUR CLAIM AND THE BASIS FOR OUR ACTION WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISIONS OF SEPTEMBER 15 AND OCTOBER 5, 1960. WITH THE LATTER DECISION YOU WERE FURNISHED A COPY OF A FIRST INDORSEMENT DATED MARCH 25, 1958, FROM THE CHIEF, TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, DIRECTORATE, SUPPLY AND SERVICES, ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA, TO THE DIRECTOR, HEADQUARTERS, SOUTHERN TRAFFIC REGION, MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FOREST PARK, GEORGIA, IN WHICH IT IS UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT THIS SHIPMENT WAS TENDERED TO YOUR COMPANY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FREIGHT TRAILER WOULD BE LOADED ON YOUR EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTED ACCORDINGLY; THAT OF THE THREE MOTOR CARRIERS, INCLUDING YOUR COMPANY, AUTHORIZED TO SERVICE THAT ACTIVITY, ONLY ONE, DEALERS TRANSIT, INC., HAD "TOW AWAY" RIGHTS; THAT IF TOW AWAY SERVICE WAS REQUIRED, DEALERS TRANSIT, INC., WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED, AND THAT THE REASON TOW AWAY SERVICE VIA DEALERS WAS NOT UTILIZED WAS THAT THE DISTANCE INVOLVED WAS CONSIDERED TOO GREAT FOR THAT TYPE SERVICE AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT.
IN REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER YOU URGE THAT WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE CONSIGNOR'S OBLIGATIONS WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO RULES 21, 22 AND 23 OF NATIONAL MOTOR FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. A-2, MF-I.C.C. NO. 6.
THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WHEN ANY CARRIER FURNISHES THE REQUIRED EQUIPMENT TO MOVE A BULKY ARTICLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 21 OF THE CLASSIFICATION, THE GOVERNMENT AS SHIPPER WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO PERFORM THE LOADING OF THE VEHICLE AND PROVIDE AND INSTALL THE TEMPORARY BLOCKING, ETC. HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION, YOU DID NOT FURNISH THE NECESSARY VEHICLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE SHIPMENT, THEREFORE, IT WAS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PERFORM THE LOADING, BRACING, ETC. SINCE YOU NOW ASSERT IN YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 17, 1961, THAT ,AT THAT TIME--- MAY 2, 1956--- WE DID NOT HAVE EQUIPMENT TO HANDLE A BULKY ARTICLE OF SUCH PROPORTIONS," IT APPEARS YOU SHOULD HAVE REFUSED THE SHIPMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1, RULE 23 OF THE CLASSIFICATION TO WHICH YOU REFER.
THE CONTENTS OF YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 17, 1961, HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY FACTS OR EVIDENCE THAT WOULD WARRANT ANY MODIFICATION OF THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR DECISIONS OF SEPTEMBER 15 AND OCTOBER 5, 1960. ACCORDINGLY, THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THOSE DECISIONS MUST BE ADHERED TO. ..END :