E.W. Wylie Corp. v. Menard, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Marine Bank v. Taz's Trucking Inc.

    2005 WI 65 (Wis. 2005)   Cited 16 times

    Relying on Schneider National, the court of appeals determined that the common law presumption in regard to consignee liability had been rebutted here by undisputed evidence that MBM and Taz's had agreed that MBM would be solely liable for freight charges. The court also looked at E.W. Wylie Corporation v. Menard, Inc., 523 N.W.2d 395 (N.D. 1994), and LTV Steel Co. v. David Graham Co., 78 B.R. 713 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987), in addition to Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Rudolph Express Co., 855 F. Supp. 270, 273 (E.D. Wis. 1994), and determined that all three cases are correct statements of law and should be applied to the facts in this case. See Marine Bank v. Taz's Trucking, Inc., 2004 WI App 164, ¶¶ 19-22, 275 Wis. 2d 711, 688 N.W.2d 730.

  2. Landstar Express Am., Inc. v. Nexteer Auto. Corp.

    319 Mich. App. 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Refusing to imply a contract where "the benefit defendants received ... was nothing more than what all the parties contemplated" when negotiating their respective contracts

    However, we agree with the North Dakota Supreme Court, which stated that "Fink and York & Whitney do not hold that the common law presumptions, as distinguished from the statutory filed rate doctrine, cannot be altered by contract." E.W. Wylie Corp. v. Menard, Inc., 523 N.W.2d 395, 398 (N.D.1994). Instead,

  3. Western Home Transport, Inc. v. Hexco, LLC

    28 F. Supp. 3d 959 (D.N.D. 2014)   Cited 4 times
    In Hexco the consignor had agreed to pay the freight charges and the consignee had not. Contrary to Samrat's charges, Maersk maintains that Hexco does not stand for the proposition that the bills of lading in the instant suit are merely a receipt for goods and therefore Samrat is not liable as a named consignee.

    A number of other courts, however, have read the Fink line of filed-tariff cases more narrowly and have either held or suggested that consignee liability for freight charges for interstate shipments is simply a matter of contract in the absence of a federal statute, regulation, or administrative decision, including those governing federal tariffs. Canadian Nat. Ry. v. Vertis, Inc., 811 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1037–38 (D.N.J.2011) (concluding that federal common law consignee liability did not exist outside the ambit of the Interstate Commerce Act); Fikse & Co. v. U.S., 23 Cl.Ct. 200, 202–204 (1991) (rejecting contention that a consignee's acceptance of the shipment by itself creates an express or implied obligation to pay the freight charges); E.W. Wylie Corp. v. Menard, Inc., 523 N.W.2d 395, 398–99 (N.D.1994) (narrowly construing the Fink line of cases, concluding that liability for payment of freight charges is largely a matter of contract, and holding that any common law presumption about liability which may exist can be rebutted by evidence that the parties intended something else and has no application where there is an express contract).Consistent with the latter line of decisions are a number of motor carrier cases decided since the last round of motor carrier deregulation in 1995, holding that carrier actions to collect unpaid freight charges from consignors or consignees present only state law claims for breach of contract where there is no required tariff.

  4. Marine Bank v. Taz's Trucking Inc.

    2004 WI App. 164 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    There are two decisions which apply the common-law presumption on consignee liability for freight charges in the traditional arrangement of consignor, trucking company and consignee. First, in E.W. Wylie Corp. v. Menard, Inc., 523 N.W.2d 395, 404 (N.D. 1994), the North Dakota Supreme Court found Schneider National to be particularly helpful in resolving the issue of consignee liability. In Wylie, Menard purchased a large quantity of lumber from a lumber mill in New York and, as part of the contract, Menard was to pay all freight charges directly to the mill.

  5. Universal Truckload, Inc. v. Dalton Logistics, Inc.

    946 F.3d 689 (5th Cir. 2020)   Cited 8 times

    Contrary to Universal Truckload’s contention, these provisions do not create a default rule that the consignee is always liable to the party who delivers goods. Universal Truckload cites a single case it believes supports its reading of North Dakota law: E.W. Wylie Corp. v. Menard, Inc. , 523 N.W.2d 395 (N.D. 1994). Universal Truckload contends that Wylie established a common law rule that carriers may seek payment from either the consignor or consignee.

  6. Hanson v. Acceleration Life Insurance Company

    Civil No. A3-97-152 (D.N.D. Mar. 16, 1999)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that statutory language was inconsistent with the establishment of a filed rate obviating the application of the filed rate doctrine

    Further, the North Dakota Supreme Court has never applied the filed rate doctrine as a bar to a claim, although it has recognized the existence of the doctrine in the common carrier context. See E.W. Wylie Corp. v. Menard, Inc., 523 N.W.2d 395, 398-99, 403 (N.D. 1994) (discussing statutory filed rate doctrine and finding it inapplicable in contract carriage case). Defendants' arguments that the North Dakota Supreme Court would apply the filed rate doctrine in the present context of long term care insurance contracts are unpersuasive.