Collins v EDI International Freight MNnagament Pty Ltd
[2013] QCAT 389
•24 July 2013
| CITATION: | Collins v EDI International Freight MNnagament Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 389 |
| PARTIES: | Christopher Collins (Applicant) |
| v | |
| EDI International Freight MNnagament Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO030/13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 27 June 2013; on the papers hearing 24 July 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Caboolture |
| DECISION OF: | Louise McDonald, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 24 July 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Caboolture |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. That the Respondent pay the Applicant $1,610 forthwith. 2. That the claim for the additional charges for the Truck and cleaning are dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE - Disputed evidence of measurement as basis of charge. |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Chistopher Collins |
| RESPONDENT: | EDI Freight Management Pty Ltd t/as EDI Customs John Leggett |
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Applicant, Mr Collins claims that he has been overcharged for freight to ship a 1966 American 6 wheeler Truck and Corvette from USA to Australia under the brokerage of the respondent. The respondent, EDI Customs, (hereafter EDI), was the Australian based shipping agent engaged to facilitate the importation to Australia of these two vehicles. He claims he was given a verbal quote of $2,000 - $3,000, but was ultimately charged $8,556.
The applicant claims that he has been overcharged $3,646 for the Truck. Mr Collins claims that the agreement between the parties was contained in an email between them dated 30 July 2012, where in EDI quoted a rate of $US105 cubic metres based on the volume of 30.9cubic metres quoted by Mr Collins.
Mr Collins claims the cost of cleaning this vehicle, $2,750 on the basis it had been through a cyclone, and had been caused by the shipping.
Further he claims the cost of shipping the Corvette, an amount which totalled $AUS1610, noted as $USD1525 on the invoice of 3 October 2012.
Corvette
Mr Collins argues that he should not be charged for the costs of shipping the Corvette. He suggests to the Tribunal that he was not aware of any additional costs that he would incur for shipping the Corvette and was never quoted for it. He believed it had been part of the costs of shipping the Truck, given the arrangements he thought had been made between he and EDI for shipping the Corvette within the bed of the truck.
He claimed that EDI’s representative, Mr Bonasia, had approached him to put some additional motorbikes in the back of his vehicle, and he had agreed where it came within the volume limit and the price quoted. Subsequently, when it came time, these vehicles where not available to be shipped and Mr Collins approached EDI’s representative about placing a Corvette in the same space in the vehicle, on the basis it came within the volume requirements for the quoted price. He claims that he was advised by EDI that he could do so long as it fit within the volume of 30.62 for which he had quoted.
A series of emails between the Australian and US shipping brokers EDI and Rinkens around the Corvette reveal that the Respondent was aware that there was a likelihood that the Corvette would be charged separately.
On 21 August 2012 Mr Bonsai of EDI asked Rinkens if the Corvette would fit as one unit. By email of 28 August 2012 Rinkens advised EDI that it was clear that the Corvette and truck would be billed as two vehicles, but it would be up to the harbourmaster if they could be delivered as one, that with the Corvette inside the truck.
By email of 6 September 2012 Mr Bonasia of EDI asked if MOL Shipping Lines would bill the Corvette in the Truck as one unit rather than 2. The response from Rinkens was that they were to first establish if it could be loaded as a unit, and there were concerns expressed about the viability of this.
On 19 September 2012, Rinkens referred to the rates advised to EDI, and this noted the $1,600 for the Corvette.
The Tribunal is satisfied that EDI were aware that Mr Collins was exposed to being billed for the two cars. There is no evidence that EDI informed Mr Collins of this until the final invoice was presented to him, and further noted in the itemised bill explained in the email of 10 November between the parties. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Collins was at any time quoted any amount for costs of shipping for this vehicle.
The Tribunal considers that the evidence suggests EDI, acting as Mr Collins agent in relation to the vehicles led Mr Collins to believe that there was no cost for the Corvette, and did not inform him otherwise despite knowledge of that cost. Mr Collins acted in reliance on EDI’s representations that he could place the two cars as one unit within the agreed space. Therefore, the claim for the costs of shipping the Corvette should be granted to the applicant.
1966 AMERICAN MOTOR 6 WHEEL TRUCK VIN 4J 9325
Mr Collins claims he was quoted for importation of the truck for a price based on the volume he provided of 30.62m3. This price was quoted at $US105/m3 in the email of 30 July 2012, in addition to a range of charges import and export charges. Mr Collins contends it was quoted at $AUS102. There is no written evidence of the currency conversion before the tribunal, and I therefore accept the figures provided.
EDI argued that Mr Collins had provided this measurement but that it was inconsistent with the measurements of 47.51m3 provided by at Jacksonville port where MOL shipping line measured the vehicle. The larger volume increased the price category to a cost of $US148/m3.
Mr Collins stated that the seller gave him these dimensions and this is the basis upon which the vehicle has been registered in Queensland, and further, the Queensland Transport Certificate of Modification shows this volume. By email of 29 July 2012, Mr JP Glynn, seller of the Truck provided Measurements to Mr Collins as follows: 7 ft x 8ft x 19.6ft long. Converted to metric, these measured as 30.9m3 according to Mr Collins.
On 19 September 2012, Mr Bonasia received an email advising that the truck measurements had returned at 44m3. He advised Rinkens that it was erroneous and that he had checked his calculations and the measurements were 31m3, stating, “Please change the booking back to 31m3 as the below information given to you.”
Steve from Rinkens advised that he written on the file 43.06m3, and stated “as you know the terminal will measure the unit at the time of delivery and that will be the CBM for the rate”.
By email on 20 September 2012, EDI informed Mr Collins that the US based Seller who had been liaising with the US based Rinkens had informed them that the truck measured 43m3. They indicated that was the basis of the booking. There is no record of a response to this email before the Tribunal.
By email of 30 October 2012, Martin Robles from Rinkens advised Nigel from EDI that the seller had advised 44 to 45 m3, and the Port measured 47.5m3. He questioned whether bumper and antennae had been included in the measurement. Mr Robles suggested that the buyer contact the seller for a more accurate description of the vehicle.
The prepaid measurements docket receipt of 7 October 2012, measures the Truck at 42.29m3. It would appear that this is based on the Rinkens information from the seller, and relates to the email of 20 September as the basis for the booking.
Mr Collins takes issue with the issue of the charges before the vehicle arrived at the port. The invoice from Rinkens to EDI is dated 10/3/12, in American this would translate to the 3 October 2012. The vehicles arrived in on at the US Port of Jacksonville 7 October 2012. The Tribunal places no weight on this as this is based on Rinkens communications with the seller, and the MOL measurements form the basis of the final invoice.
By email of 9 November 2012, EDI advised that they have been continuing to dispute the volume measurements, and it could be remeasured on arrival.
By email of 10 November 2012, EDI offer the applicant to remeasure at the Australian port on arrival of the vehicles, and this is refused by the applicant.
Several measurements have been put forward ranging from 30.62m3 to 47.5m3 for the same vehicle. Ultimately, the Tribunal considers that EDI acted at all times within the instructions that Mr Collins had given them, and attempted to accommodate him as much as possible.
It would seem the seller has given inconsistent measurements to the Mr Collins and those which the seller gave to Rinkens. The Tribunal cannot find EDI responsible for this cost.
To further clarify this, Mr Collins was directed to submit the Queensland Transport Modification Certificate. This was submitted with handwritten entry recording 30.9m3. The respondent questioned the validity of this certificate and sought the Queensland Transport Registration Certificate to be filed before the tribunal to verify its authenticity. The Applicant was ordered to file the same, and failed to do so.
Mr Collins has been unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that EDI have any liability for the increase in charge based on measurements he provided. EDI acted on the measurements provided to them by the applicant. Nor has he been able to prove these measurements. He has not accepted the offer to have the vehicle remeasured, and appointed another broker who have not sought re-measurement. Accordingly, the claim for the overcharge on the truck is dismissed.
Cleaning
It is apparent according the email of 30 July 2012 between the parties, relied upon by the applicant as the basis of the contract between them, that cleaning was never a term of the agreement between the parties. It was clear from this email that cleaning charges would be additional charges. Accordingly any claim for compensation for cleaning is dismissed.
Further, although that suffices, it is apparent from communications from the US shipping agent with the US seller of the vehicle, that the vehicle was provided in wharf in unclean state where no attempt to clean it had been made. By email of 4 March 2012, from Michelle Mc Keever to Quarantine Operations supervisor at Patrick Port Services:
Quarantine pointed out that the vehicle was an ex military vehicle which had been very dirty. No attempt had been made to clean it upon delivery to the Wharf in the USA. The dirt was the result of years of service by military and civilian owners. Contaminants that had been built up over a long time were removed.
In circumstances where the contract makes clear that additional costs for cleaning would apply beyond the amounts quoted, this aspect of the claim is dismissed.
ORDERS
The order is that the Respondent must pay the applicant $1,610 for costs in relation to the overcharge of the Corvette. All other aspects of the claim are dismissed.
0
0
0