Help with shipping contract clause

[Matt Morrison]

Alright guys. I bow down to your undeniably superior knowledge and experience.

This is a clause from a contract we have with some Canadian shippers who have doubled our costs from the quote to the invoice, and don't seem to want to budge. Aside from other inconsistencies in their paperwork, I wonder if you think the last sentence in this clause actually means anything!!!

I'm sending the whole clause, to put it in context. Most of the Terms and Conditions have spelling mistakes and other problems, but these are generally ignored in arbitration unless they change the meaning or make it incomprehensible.

13. MINIMUM VOLUME: The volume stated on the conract, shall be what the rate(s) reflect. We shall reserve that amount of space for your transportation needs and therefore will become the minimum volume in which the client shall be charged. Any fluctuations to an increase in volume shall be adjusted respectively.

The last "sentence" is the only one in the terms that could give them any rights to increase SOME of our costs due to an increase in the volume of our goods (as there is no other that mentions it). But what does it mean?

This is for a load of stuff moving over from Canada to England. Anyone have any history with doing big international moves, and know how flexibly the companies treat their TOCs?

[Jon O'Neill]

Alright guys. I bow down to your undeniably superior knowledge and experience.

This is a clause from a contract we have with some Canadian shippers who have doubled our costs from the quote to the invoice, and don't seem to want to budge. Aside from other inconsistencies in their paperwork, I wonder if you think the last sentence in this clause actually means anything!!!

I'm sending the whole clause, to put it in context. Most of the Terms and Conditions have spelling mistakes and other problems, but these are generally ignored in arbitration unless they change the meaning or make it incomprehensible.

13. MINIMUM VOLUME: The volume stated on the conract, shall be what the rate(s) reflect. We shall reserve that amount of space for your transportation needs and therefore will become the minimum volume in which the client shall be charged. Any fluctuations to an increase in volume shall be adjusted respectively.

The last "sentence" is the only one in the terms that could give them any rights to increase SOME of our costs due to an increase in the volume of our goods (as there is no other that mentions it). But what does it mean?

This is for a load of stuff moving over from Canada to England. Anyone have any history with doing big international moves, and know how flexibly the companies treat their TOCs?

None of that makes any fucking sense. Ridiculous. As I read it, they are becoming an amount of space, and that last sentence is horrible. I've got no idea, sorry.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think it means that there is (or will be) an agreed volume on the contract and this is the minimum he will be charged for, even if he needs less volume because they are going to reserve that amount of space regardless. However, should he need more space, the amount charged will be increased "respectively".

[Matt Morrison]

Yeah, it's just so vague and badly written that you get the feeling that's almost deliberate, to allow it to be interpreted in whichever way they see fit.

I'm not entirely sure where the specific "volume stated on the conract" came from - whether it was my uncle's estimation or their own measure, I don't know if shipping companies would come round and give an appraisal for such a big job? If the volume they are going on is my uncle's estimation, then fair enough - I can understand that if they've not had the chance to measure the amount of stuff being transported themselves then they have to build a caveat in. But if they have measured the volume themselves then this is probably just so they can charge an extortionate rate if suddenly my uncle decides there are a few extra boxes that need transporting - they know they can hold him to ransom as they'll expect anyone in such a situation to be willing to pay over the odds for the extra boxes rather than leave them in Canada, so they're just setting themselves up to take advantage if they should get the chance.

[Liam Tiernan]

Are they saying that they reserved a certain volume based on the estimate they were given, and because the load went over that by a small amount,they had to reserve a second container of the same size to take the overflow? Or if it was multiple shipments of different volumes, that they are entitled to charge each load at the volume of the largest shipment?

[Ian Volante]

I would assume that the last sentence is missing a word:

"Any fluctuations DUE to an increase in volume shall be adjusted respectively."

Could mean absolutely anything though. That's not legalese, it's pure bollocks.

[Matt Morrison]

Update:

We provided measurements of 13 boxes and these dimensions are not disputed. Finally got clarification of that last night. They translated our feet and inches into cubic metres and did all the estimates based on this. Then their packers put it all on a palette resulting in 1.7 cbm. 70%increase and the first we knew was on arrival when they sent an invoice double the size of the estimated total. I took their term increase to mean what you said. Ie more boxes. They mean bloat done by their packers.

This is pretty cuntish, I've told him he'll have to look somewhere in the T&C for the bit where they say they charge you based on the volume after they have packed it, not the actual 'real' volume of the content that you are having shipped. I guess the best chance of money back is proving that they don't make it clear that they charge based on shipping volume and not goods volume.

I think we've all learned a very important lesson here.

[JimBentley]

Update:

We provided measurements of 13 boxes and these dimensions are not disputed. Finally got clarification of that last night. They translated our feet and inches into cubic metres and did all the estimates based on this. Then their packers put it all on a palette resulting in 1.7 cbm. 70%increase and the first we knew was on arrival when they sent an invoice double the size of the estimated total. I took their term increase to mean what you said. Ie more boxes. They mean bloat done by their packers.

This is pretty cuntish, I've told him he'll have to look somewhere in the T&C for the bit where they say they charge you based on the volume after they have packed it, not the actual 'real' volume of the content that you are having shipped. I guess the best chance of money back is proving that they don't make it clear that they charge based on shipping volume and not goods volume.

I think we've all learned a very important lesson here.

This sounds like complete fucking bullshit from the shipping company. If there was a 70% increase in the cubic metreage then that means that over 40% of the space (on the pallet, considered as a cuboid) was wasted and that's not how you palletise goods - the more wasted space, the less stable the pallet will be. Unless there was one massive box and twelve tiny boxes, I can't see how they achieved that unless their packers are either incredibly inept, or they have a policy to include as much wasted space as they can in order to artificially increase the amount they can charge. Cunts.

Actually, thinking about this a bit more, if they gave him an estimate based on box measurements that he gave them, then he should be able to argue that this estimate should be binding. If they - with full knowledge of the individual dimensions of the boxes - can't work out beforehand that they can't be packed into a space roughly equal to the total cubic metreage of the 13 boxes, then that's their own fault. All your uncle was asked for was the measurements of the boxes - it's up to the shipping company to calculate how much pallet volume this will translate into and estimate on that.

[Matt Morrison]

Thanks guys, much appreciated. Can't give you higher praise than:

I think I'm going to cut and paste from your forum contributions!

And just for fun, here's a sample of the shipping company's attitude and grasp of English:

About your second question, in terms and conditions in point # 9 - Explained charges for in origin, and the 30% plus - ( partial packing and loading). Then the rest of services like: door delivery and maritime transportation were affected by the volume.

[David Williams]

I think it means that there is (or will be) an agreed volume on the contract and this is the minimum he will be charged for, even if he needs less volume because they are going to reserve that amount of space regardless. However, should he need more space, the amount charged will be increased "respectively".

Just flicked through this thread for the first time. A bit late in the day, but it might help understanding what they were trying to say if I mention that this is exactly what I thought, except that I misread the last word as "retrospectively" - which is surely what they meant.

[Richard Adams]

I agree with Jim, and certainly in this country if a lawyer gives an estimate, the lawyer is bound by that estimate, unless an alteration to it is agreed between both parties along the way

But does this apply to Canadian shipping contracts? This is probably a matter of Canadian law (the contract itself will define which legal system applies to it) and if the sums involved justify it, an opinion of a suitable local expert would be useful

These cross-border things are notoriously tricky

[John Bosley]

Questions

1) Are they translating from, say French?

2) Is is possible to cancel and go somewhere else?

[Rosemary Roberts]

Googling the odd fragment reveals that a lot of their phraseology is in very common use by foreign users of English, from Poland to Japan. Which may explain why it is so meaningless.

There is a very common catch-all clause, much used in Germany and probably also elsewhere, that states roughly "if we have forgotten anything important then we will make up a suitable clause and this will then be binding". If your uncle rashly signed something like that it might be difficult even for a genuine lawyer to overthrow it. And since jurisdiction is probably with them it would have to be a Canadian lawyer anyway.

Your uncle may have to bite the bullet this time, but in the long term this company sounds to be no great loss.