B-148465, B-148615, JULY 15, 1963, 43 COMP. GEN. 54

B-148465, B-148615, JULY 15, 1963, 43 COMP. GEN. 54

TRANSPORTATION - ROUTES - MISROUTED - LIABILITY FOR EXCESS CHARGES - GENERAL RULE. TRANSPORTATION - ROUTES - MISROUTED - LIABILITY FOR EXCESS CHARGES - TARIFF SHIPMENTS. TRANSPORTATION - ROUTES - MISROUTED - LIABILITY FOR EXCESS CHARGES - TARIFF SHIPMENTS. TRANSPORTATION - ROUTES - MISROUTED - LIABILITY FOR EXCESS CHARGES - SPECIAL RATE SHIPMENTS IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF UNROUTED GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS BY MOTOR CARRIER, THE INITIAL CARRIER HAS THE DUTY OF FORWARDING THE SHIPMENT OVER LINES OF CONNECTING CARRIERS VIA THE ROUTE WHICH PRODUCES THE LOWEST TOTAL CHARGE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FAILURE OF A CARRIER TO FORWARD A SHIPMENT OVER THE LOWEST APPLICABLE RATE ROUTE MAKES IT GUILTY OF MISROUTING AND LIABLE FOR THE EXCESS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO RATES AND ROUTES PROVIDED IN INTERSTATE TARIFFS REGULARLY PUBLISHED AND FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ALL CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN THE MOVEMENT ARE CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGALLY PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES OR CHARGES. A DESTINATION MOTOR CARRIER THAT HAD A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING INDICATING THAT AN UNROUTED SHIPMENT WAS MISROUTED AND THAT THE SHIPPER WAS ENTITLED TO THE LOWEST AVAILABLE CHARGE UNDER A REGULARLY PUBLISHED TARIFF WHEN IT PRESENTED ITS BILL FOR PAYMENT IS NOT ONLY CHARGEABLE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPER RATE UNDER THE TARIFF BUT IS THE CARRIER THAT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF CHARGING THE CARRIER THAT MISROUTED THE SHIPMENT WITH THE EXCESS CHARGES AND OF ASSESSING ANY OTHER CONNECTING CARRIERS ITS PROPER PROPORTION OF THE ACTUAL ROUTE-OF-MOVEMENT CHARGES THEREBY ELIMINATING ANY CIRCUITY OF ACTION IN COLLECTING THE EXCESS CHARGES AND, THEREFORE, RECOVERY OF THE EXCESS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FROM THE DESTINATION CARRIER IS PROPER. AN INITIAL MOTOR CARRIER THAT WAS TENDERED UNROUTED GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL RATE QUOTATION AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. 22 (1), AND FORWARDED THE SHIPMENTS OVER LINES OF CONNECTING CARRIERS OTHER THAN CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN THE SPECIAL RATE QUOTATION IS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE DESTINATION CARRIER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE MISROUTING, THE CARRIER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISROUTING AND, THEREFORE, THE CARRIER LIABLE FOR THE EXCESS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES.

TO THE WESTERN TRUCK LINES, LTD., JULY 15, 1963:

IN YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 5, 1963, YOU REQUEST REVIEW OF OUR DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIMS, PER BILL NOS. G-02475, G-02259, G-02845, AND G-02935. THESE CLAIMS WERE DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE BECAUSE THEY COVER EXCESS FREIGHT CHARGES ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF MISROUTING. SEE, IN THIS CONNECTION, THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN HEWITT- ROBINS, INC. V. EASTERN FREIGHT-WAYS, INC., 371 U.S. 84, DECIDED NOVEMBER 19, 1962, HOLDING THAT A SHIPPER BY MOTOR CARRIER HAS A RIGHT TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE IN RATE CHARGES RESULTING FROM IMPROPER ROUTING BY THE CARRIER OF A SHIPMENT OVER OTHER THAN THE LEAST EXPENSIVE AVAILABLE ROUTE. IN OUR PRIOR RECOVERY OF THE EXCESS CHARGES PAID ON THE SHIPMENTS COVERED BY BILL NOS. G-02845 AND G 02935, YOUR COMPANY WAS HELD LIABLE AS ORIGIN CARRIER; WHEREAS, IN OUR RECOVERY IN THE OTHER TWO INSTANCES YOU WERE HELD LIABLE AS DESTINATION CARRIER. THEREFORE, IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU STATE- -

WE ARE SOMEWHAT AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES OUTLINED BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, SINCE WE NOTE THAT, WHILE ALL FOUR CLAIMS ARE BASED ON MIS-ROUTING, TWO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO OURSELVES AS THE ORIGIN CARRIER AND TWO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO US AS THE DESTINATION CARRIER. PERHAPS YOUR OFFICE CAN EXPLAIN THIS INCONSISTENCY TO US, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THESE SPECIFIC CLAIMS AND ANY FUTURE ONES THAT WE MIGHT RECEIVE; WHEN SUCH CLAIMS ARE BASED ON MIS-ROUTING.

THE CLAIM ON YOUR BILL NO. G-02475 CONCERNS A SHIPMENT UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. N-34065512, DATED AUGUST 19, 1959, WHICH WAS TENDERED BY THE CONSIGNEE AT DESTINATION. FOR THE SERVICE PERFORMED ON THIS SHIPMENT YOUR COMPANY ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WAS PAID CHARGES OF $546.88, BASED ON THE LESS-THAN-TRUCKLOAD RATES APPLICABLE ON THE SEVERAL COMMODITIES CONTAINED IN THE SHIPMENT. ON AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER IN OUR OFFICE A NOTICE OF OVERCHARGE WAS ISSUED TO YOUR COMPANY FOR REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $61.22, SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERED BY ADMINISTRATIVE DEDUCTION. OUR OFFICE COMPUTED THE CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF A LOWER CLASS 200-RATING ON AN ITEM OF 380 POUNDS OF INSULATING MATERIAL, WHICH LOWER RATING IS AUTHORIZED IN ITEM 300 OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU TRANSCONTINENTAL CLASS TARIFF 21-B, MF-I.C.C. NO. 117, AND APPLIES IN CONNECTION WITH ALL CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN THE TARIFF EXCEPT WESTERN TRUCK LINES, LTD., AND ONE OTHER CARRIER.

THE CLAIM ON YOUR BILL NO. G-02559 CONCERNS TWO SHIPMENTS OF CLASS "B" EXPLOSIVES ON GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NOS. N-34513768 AND N 34513769, DATED AUGUST 25, 1959, AND SEPTEMBER 2, 1959, AND WEIGHING 128 POUNDS AND 174 POUNDS, RESPECTIVELY, WHICH WERE TENDERED UNROUTED TO CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., AT MCGREGOR, TEXAS, FOR MOVEMENT TO CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA. THE SHIPMENTS WERE DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE AT CHINA LAKE WESTERN TRUCK LINES, LTD. FOR THIS SERVICE YOU ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WERE PAID FREIGHT CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $906.75 FOR EACH SHIPMENT, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A CLASS-150 RATE OF $12.09 PER 100 POUNDS PROVIDED IN R.M.M.T.B. TARIFF NO. 21-B, MF-I.C.C. NO. 117, AT A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 7,500 POUNDS PROVIDED IN THE MINIMUM CHARGE RULE IN ITEM 932 OF R.M.M.T.B. TARIFF NO. 20-B, MF- I.C.C. NO. 101. NOTE 2 IN ITEM 932 PROVIDES THAT VIA ANY ONE OR ANY COMBINATION OF THE 33 CARRIERS LISTED IN NOTE 2--- INCLUDING CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, THE INITIAL CARRIER IN THIS CASE, BUT NOT INCLUDING WESTERN TRUCK LINES--- THE MINIMUM CHARGE WILL NOT APPLY. THEREFORE, ON AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER, OUR OFFICE COMPUTED CHARGES AT THE PUBLISHED THROUGH RATE OF $12.09 PER 100 POUNDS AT THE ACTUAL WEIGHTS OF THE SHIPMENTS RESULTING IN OVERCHARGES OF $891.27 AND $885.71 ASSESSED AGAINST YOUR COMPANY AS DESTINATION CARRIER AND SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERED BY ADMINISTRATIVE DEDUCTION. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE SHIPMENTS COVERED BY YOUR BILLS G 02475 AND G-02559 BOTH MOVED UNDER RATES PROVIDED TO REGULARLY PUBLISHED AND FILED TARIFFS WHICH WERE ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, YOUR CLAIM NO. G-02845 COVERS A SHIPMENT OF PERSONAL EFFECTS TRANSPORTED UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. A 8954191, DATED APRIL 28, 1961. THE SHIPMENT WAS TENDERED UNROUTED TO WESTERN TRUCK LINES, WHICH WAS A PARTY TO A SPECIAL RATE OF $6.47 PER 100 POUNDS PUBLISHED IN R.M.M.T.B. QUOTATION NO. 51, I.C.C. NO. 4, FOR THE MOVEMENT FROM SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, TO PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA. THE SHIPMENT WAS DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE AT DESTINATION BY M.R. AND R. TRUCKING COMPANY, WHICH WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE QUOTATION AND, PRESUMABLY, COULD NOT BE CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIAL CONTRACT WITH THE ORIGIN CARRIER AND THE CONNECTING LINES WHICH WERE PARTIES TO THE QUOTATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DESTINATION CARRIER CLAIMED AND WAS PAID CHARGES BASED UPON A PUBLISHED RATE OF $10.82 PER 100 POUNDS PROVIDED IN THE CLASS TARIFF AND, ON AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER IN OUR OFFICE, THE OVERCHARGE WAS ASSESSED AGAINST WESTERN TRUCK LINES, WHICH NOT ONLY WAS A PARTY TO THE QUOTATION BUT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISROUTE, AS WELL.

SIMILARLY, YOUR CLAIM NO. G-02935 INVOLVED A SHIPMENT OF AIRCRAFT PARTS TRANSPORTED UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. B-2489238 DURING FEBRUARY 1962, WHICH WAS TENDERED UNROUTED TO WESTERN TRUCK LINES FOR CARRIAGE FROM MIRA LOMA, CALIFORNIA, TO WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA. WESTERN TRUCK LINES WAS A PART TO THE SPECIAL RATE PROVIDED BY R.M.M.T.B. QUOTATION I.C.C. NO. 10, ITEM 300. THE SHIPMENT WAS DELIVERED AT DESTINATION BY TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., WHICH DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE QUOTATION AND, THEREFORE, CLAIMED AND WAS PAID HIGHER PUBLISHED CHARGES FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED. CONSEQUENTLY, ON AUDIT IN OUR OFFICE AN OVERCHARGE FOR THE DIFFERENCE WAS ASSESSED AGAINST YOUR COMPANY, THE ORIGIN CARRIER WHICH WAS A PARTY TO THE QUOTATION AND WAS THE CARRIER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISROUTING.

THE INITIAL CARRIER IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF FORWARDING AN UNROUTED SHIPMENT TENDERED TO IT OVER THE LINES OF CONNECTING CARRIERS VIA WHICH THE LOWEST TOTAL CHARGE APPLIES AND ITS FAILURE TO DO SO CONSTITUTES MISROUTING. MURRAY COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. V. MORROW, INC., 54 M.C.C. 442, 444; METZNER STOVE REPAIR COMPANY V. RANFT, 47 M.C.C. 151, 154; GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY V. ONTARIO FREIGHT LINES, 46 M.C.C. 237; HAUSMAN STEEL COMPANY V. SEABOARD FREIGHT LINES, 32 M.C.C. 31, 34, 36. THE CARRIER GUILTY OF MISROUTING IS LIABLE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RATE APPLICABLE OVER THE ROUTE OF MOVEMENT AND A LOWER RATE APPLICABLE VIA THE ROUTE OVER WHICH THE SHIPMENT SHOULD HAVE MOVED. ALABAMA ROCK ASPHALT, INC. V. ABILENE AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, 206 I.C.C. 510; SUNDERLAND BROTHERS COMPANY V. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, 168 I.C.C. 446; FERGUSON, ASSIGNEE V. LOUISVILLE AND ARKANSAS RAILWAY COMPANY, 196 I.C.C. 369, 373. SINCE THESE SHIPMENTS WERE MISROUTED, THE LIABILITY FOR THE EXCESS CHARGE RESTS UPON THE CARRIER GUILTY OF THE MISROUTING, AND NO PART OF SUCH EXCESS IS PAYABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT.

THE FIRST TWO CLAIMS CONSIDERED ABOVE, NOS. G-02475 AND G-02559, COVERED SHIPMENTS WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO RATES AND ROUTES PROVIDED IN INTERSTATE TARIFFS REGULARLY PUBLISHED AND FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND SHIPPERS AND CARRIERS ALIKE ARE CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGALLY PUBLISHED TARIFF RATE OR CHARGE. JOHNSON MACHINE WORKS, INC. V. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILWAY CO., 297 F.2D 793, 794 (8TH CIR., 1962); ATCHISON, T. AND S.F.RY.CO. V. SPRINGER, 172 F.2D 346, 349 (7TH CIR., 1949); KAHN MFG. CO. V. BOSTON AND M.R.R.CO., 276 I.C.C. 556, 559. WHILE YOU WERE NOT THE INITIAL CARRIER IN THESE TWO INSTANCES, YOU HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SHIPMENT HAD BEEN TENDERED TO THE INITIAL CARRIER UNROUTED BEFORE YOU CLAIMED AND COLLECTED THE HIGHER CHARGES, AND YOU WERE LEGALLY CHARGEABLE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES. IN THIS SITUATION, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BECOME INVOLVED IN SUCH CIRCUITY OF ACTION AS WOULD BE ENTAILED BY THE COLLECTION OF THE EXCESS CHARGES FROM THE GOVERNMENT BY ONE CARRIER AND THE REFUND OF THE SAME CHARGES TO THE GOVERNMENT BY ANOTHER CARRIER PARTICIPATING IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE SHIPMENT. SEE GALVESTON, HOUSTON AND SAN ANTONIO RAILWAY COMPANY V. LYKES BROS., 294 FED. 968, AND LANCASTER V. SCHREINER, 212 S.W. 19.

WHICH CARRIER IN THE ACTUAL ROUTE OF MOVEMENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MISROUTING THE SHIPMENTS COVERED BY CLAIM NOS. G-02475 AND G-02559 SEEMS ORDINARILY TO BE IMMATERIAL TO THE SHIPPER. THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE CLAIMED BY, AND PAID TO, THE LAST CARRIER IN THE ACTUAL ROUTE OF MOVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CONDITION NO. 1 ON THE BACK OF THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING. IN CONNECTION WITH EACH SHIPMENT, THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING WAS SURRENDERED TO THE DELIVERING CARRIER AND THAT CARRIER USED THE BILL OF LADING TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM FOR CHARGES. THUS, THE CARRIER WHICH CLAIMED AND RECEIVED PAYMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES HAD IN ITS POSSESSION THE EVIDENCE (UNROUTED BILL OF LADING) OF THE MISROUTING OF THE SHIPMENT AND OF THE RIGHT OF THE SHIPPER TO THE BENEFIT OF THE LOWEST AVAILABLE JOINT THROUGH RATE IN WHICH THE INITIAL CARRIER PARTICIPATED. IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THROUGH REVENUE AMONG THE INTERESTED CARRIERS, THE DELIVERING CARRIER HAD THE MEANS OF PROTECTING THE REVENUE OF THOSE CARRIERS INNOCENT OF MISROUTING THE SHIPMENT AND ASSESSING ANY SHORTAGE IN REVENUE AGAINST THE CARRIER GUILTY OF THE MISROUTING. SEE 35 COMP. GEN. 569.

THE OTHER CLAIMS CONSIDERED ABOVE, NOS. G-02845 AND G-02935, DEALT WITH SHIPMENTS FOR WHICH CHARGES WERE PROVIDED IN A SPECIAL RATE QUOTATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC-AT-LARGE, AS AUTHORIZED IN SECTIONS 22 (1) AND 217 (B) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (49 U.S.C. 22 (1) AND 317 (B) ). BOTH OF THESE CLAIMS COVER SHIPMENTS WHICH WERE TENDERED TO YOUR COMPANY AT THE POINT OF ORIGIN BUT WHICH WERE DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE AT DESTINATION BY THE M.R. AND R. TRUCKING COMPANY IN ONE INSTANCE, AND BY THE TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY IN THE OTHER. BOTH SHIPMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO CHARGES NAMED IN A SPECIAL RATE QUOTATION, AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 22 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. 22, AND YOUR LINE AND VARIOUS OTHER LINES--- NOT INCLUDING M.R. AND R. TRUCKING CO. OR TERMINAL TRANSPORT CO.- -- PARTICIPATED IN THE RATES NAMED IN THE QUOTATION. BOTH OF THE SHIPMENTS WERE TENDERED TO YOUR LINE UNROUTED AND YOU FORWARDED THE SHIPMENTS OVER THE LINES OF CONNECTING CARRIERS OTHER THAN THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THE QUOTATION RATES. THE CARRIERS DELIVERING THE SHIPMENTS TO THE CONSIGNEE AT DESTINATION CLAIMED AND WERE PAID THE RATES PROVIDED IN THE REGULARLY PUBLISHED AND FILED TARIFFS. THUS, YOU MISROUTED THE SHIPMENTS AND BECAME RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CHARGES PAID IN EXCESS OF THOSE BASED ON THE RATES PROVIDED IN THE SECTION 22 QUOTATION. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE OVERPAYMENT WAS RECOVERED DIRECTLY FROM THE CARRIER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISROUTING RATHER THAN FROM THE DELIVERING CARRIER WHICH COLLECTED THE EXCESS CHARGE BECAUSE THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KNOWLEDGE BY EITHER OF THE DELIVERING CARRIERS THAT THE SHIPMENTS HAD BEEN MISROUTED, NOR OF ANY AGREEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ON THEIR PART TO ACCEPT ANY AMOUNT LESS THAN THEIR PROPER EARNINGS UNDER THE REGULARLY PUBLISHED AND FILED TARIFFS. UNITED STATES V. BETHKE, 132 F.SUPP. 22.

IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW, YOU TAKE NO EXCEPTION TO THE ACTUAL CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE APPLICABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR SOLE COMPLAINT NOW SEEMS TO BE THAT THE GOVERNMENT RECOVERED THE OVERPAYMENTS FROM THE DESTINATION CARRIER IN TWO INSTANCES, AND IN TWO OTHER INSTANCES THE RECOVERY WAS MADE FROM THE INITIAL CARRIER. YOU ASK AN EXPLANATION OF THIS APPARENT INCONSISTENCY. EACH SITUATION HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL ABOVE AND AN ATTEMPT AT SUMMATION WILL BE MADE.

IN THE INSTANCE COVERING CLAIMS G-02475 AND G-02559, THE APPLICABLE CHARGES WERE PROVIDED IN REGULARLY PUBLISHED AND FILED TARIFFS OF WHICH SHIPPERS AND CARRIERS ALIKE ARE CHARGED WITH NOTICE. SEE THE CASES CITED ABOVE. ALSO, YOU HAD IN YOUR ACTUAL POSSESSION BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED YOUR BILL FOR CHARGES TO THE CONSIGNEE THE ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING WHICH, BEING UNROUTED, WAS NOTICE TO YOU THAT THE SHIPPER WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE LOWEST AVAILABLE CHARGE IN WHICH THE INITIAL CARRIER PARTICIPATED, AND YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, IN ONE TRANSACTION, OF PROTECTING THE LOWEST AVAILABLE CHARGE TO THE SHIPPER, OF CHARGING THE CARRIER WHO MISROUTED THE SHIPMENT WITH THE EXCESS CHARGES, AND OF ALLOWING ANY OTHER CONNECTING CARRIER ITS PROPER PROPORTION OF THE ACTUAL ROUTE-OF-MOVEMENT CHARGES, THUS AVOIDING ALL CIRCUITY OF ACTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN CLAIMS G 02845 AND G-02935 THE APPLICABLE CHARGES WERE PROVIDED IN A SECTION 22 QUOTATION WHICH APPLIED ONLY ON GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS AND WAS WITHOUT APPLICATION ON ANY SHIPMENT TRANSPORTED FOR A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THUS, THE QUOTATION APPEARS TO BE IN THE NATURE OF A CONTINUING OFFER (37 COMP. GEN. 753; 39 ID. 352) WHICH RIPENS INTO AN IMPLIED CONTRACT WHEN ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY TENDERING A SHIPMENT FOR TRANSPORTING THEREUNDER. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 106 F.SUPP. 999, AFFIRMED 221 F.2D 698 (6TH CIR., 1955). SINCE PARTIES OTHER THAN THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THE SAID QUOTATION APPARENTLY ARE NOT CHARGEABLE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, WITH KNOWLEDGE THEREOF- -- AS THEY ARE IN THE CASE OF TARIFFS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC-AT-LARGE--- AND THE RECORD APPARENTLY CONTAINS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT EITHER DESTINATION CARRIER ACTUALLY KNEW, OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, OF THE MISROUTE, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR CHARGING THE DESTINATION CARRIER WITH THE EXCESS CHARGES, AND THE SAME WERE RECOVERED DIRECTLY FROM YOUR LINE, THE CARRIER ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISROUTING.