Contracts vs. Law pt1

I'm not actually a contract lawyer by trade, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'm not sure if the above language would be enforceable in the event that a carrier went after the shipper/receiver in the event of non payment. Unless there is malfeasance by the carrier, they tend to get paid, whether by filing against the brokers bond, or filing a demand letter against the shipper/receiver.

One reason I could see adding that language to the carrier agreement is to appease customer contracts/agreements that have language stating something along the lines of "BROKER shall require CARRIERS to look solely to broker for payment of all freight and other charges. CARRIER agrees that its sole recourse in the event of nonpayment shall be against broker. CARRIER shall not seek payment from shipper, consignee, or third parties for any invoice or payments."

I still don't think it would stick in court, but might help with customer agreements.

 

If you sue the shipper for non-payment, the shipper could NOT submit a broker contact(hersay) without the broker showing up to court. And if for some strange reason the broker did show up to court, you could cross exam his testimony on why he didn't pay.

 

First I agree if you sign an agreement it could be used against you.Vut an agreement is not a contract or it would be called a contract.Yes all signed contracts are agreements but agreements aren’t contracts when you sign up for a broker there is no consideration in that agreement,for example how much money is going to be paid for your services your just agreeing to certain things.like I said I don’t know about the op question but if it is illegal he can’t be held to it

 

now look up and see what has to be in a contract.
you help me then all contracts have to have what is called consideration in there not maybe ,have to.When you signed up with any brokers that you signed up with, what was the consideration for you was there a freight and or tariff rates agreement if not it’s not a contract.Most people on here IMO are probably negotiating on a load by load base because in there original agreement rates were not agreed to in the beginning.For example a teamster Contract has consideration it shows what services the company gets and what pay the driver receive. still A signed agreement can be held against you I never said it couldn’t but what you signed with a broker is an agreement again if an agreement was a contract it wouldn’t be called an agreement.

 

Another thing to consider is that the contract containing that language is with the broker, not the shipper. You don't have a contract with the shipper or the receiver saying you can't sue them. If you sue the shipper I suppose the broker could turn around and sue you for breach of contract. But does that seem likely?

 

You say that a contract is not an agreement, it clearly is

 

Everybody is sort of going off into the weeds. A contract is an agreement that is legally enforceable. Not all agreements are.

We agree to rob a bank together, but I chicken out. Too bad for you.

I agree to marry you. There isn't a court in the land that will make me do it, no matter how earnestly I promised.

I agree to mow your lawn for free. Most states will not enforce this because no consideration (payment) was involved. Now if I had agreed to do it for one dollar you might have a case.

Let's move on.

 

I think that that's in there because they want you to go to them for payment not to the customer.

I am in a situation where there is an intrastate load that looks like I'm not going to get paid for it.

I'm going to keep billing them and emailing them, which I received no reply as of yet, for 30 days.

Then I will begin billing the shipper and the receiver.

This is the way to handle it:

Right on the money.

We will see how it goes.