Federal Gateway Moving And Storage, Allied Van Lines Breach of Contract St. Louis Missouri

Jim,

Here is the information provided to Federal/Allied Van Lines. I have added statutory language to prove my point.

In Federal's letter to [me] dated November 29, 2007, Federal argued in paragraph 2 that Allied Van Lines, Inc. (hereafter Allied), the principal company of which Federal is an agent, transported the shipment in accordance with the terms of the agreement. This statement is incorrect since the terms of the agreement, as reported on the bill of lading, indicate a delivery date between 9/5/07 and 9/7/07.

The bill of lading is the only contractual piece of documentation between me and Federal. Since Federal did not deliver my items pursuant to the dates stated on the bill of lading, the company prima facie failed to adhere to the terms of the agreement.

Secondly, Federal stated that Title 49 of the United States Code dictates that the shipper is precluded from seeking any remedy outside of filing a claim form with the carrier. However, Title 49 U.S.C. 13103 states that remedies provided under this part are in addition to remedies existing under another law or common law. Thus, disputing the cost of the move with a banking or credit card authority due to a breach of the contract is an available remedy for the shipper.

Additionally, Federal claimed it was not responsible for breaching the contract because the gross weight of my belongings was less than 3,500 lbs. No such condition appeared in any of the paperwork that I received from Federal.

Federal also stated that had I purchased the On-Time-Pledge, my pick-up and delivery dates would have been guaranteed. However, I understand that this "Pledge" is available only for shipments exceeding 3,500 lbs., and so I did not have the option of purchasing it. In any case, Federal cannot reasonably claim that its obligation to honor a binding contract is contingent on an extra payment by the shipper.

In addition to breaching its contract with me, Federal has failed to comply with United States Department of Transportation regulations. Title 49 CFR 375.603 requires a carrier to tender a shipment for delivery for an individual shipper within the period specified on the bill of lading. Section 375.605 provides that if a carrier is unable to deliver shipment during the period specified in the order for service, the carrier must notify the shipper of the delay as soon as the delay becomes apparent to the carrier. Federal not only failed to notify me in timely fashion; it failed to notify me at all. The first time I was told my shipment would be late was when I called Federal the afternoon of September 6, 2007.

As a result of the breach, I incurred damages in the amount of $2,033.29, excluding the cost of food and lodging between September 7, 2007 and September 13, 2007. Due to the fact that I had no furniture to sleep on between September 7 and September 14, I had to choose whether to drive back to Dallas to stay with my family or rent a hotel room for one week. In an effort to mitigate damages, I chose to drive back from Amarillo to Plano, Texas to stay with my family. I returned to Amarillo on September 13, 2007 and, because I had no furniture, slept at a hotel . Finally, due to Federal's breach, I did not possess any dress suits, slacks, shirts, ties, socks, or shoes necessary to perform my job. I was therefore forced to change my first day of work at Brown & Fortunato, P.C. from September 9, 2007 to September 17, 2007.

I contacted Federal and Allied several times between September 6, 2007 and September 14, 2007, as well as several weeks after delivery. Specifically, I asked if Federal would help me mitigate any potential damages by paying for a portion of my food, lodging, and clothing. Despite my every effort to be flexible and patient, Federal continually and systematically denied paying for any damages resulting from the breach of contract.

Most reputable movers will allow you to collect on a delay claim for something like this, depending on the amount of stuff needed to be moved (there is a minimum on weight in order for the delay claim to be issued/recognized). You may want to look into this.

As you know from law school, movers don't technically have to deliver on the delivery window negotiated - they actually have 30 days from the last date of the delivery window to deliver your items. There is no question you suffered hardship; the question will ultimately be whether you qualify for the delay claim, which I will tell you would probably amount to no more than $200 or so. Even that amount would force the moving company to lose money on your move.

Most full-service movers had a pretty busy summer and with movers lacking the number of drivers and rigs needed to accomodate the unexpectedly heavy traffic this summer, your story was unfortunately common. What I would tell you is that it was NOT an unforseeable problem; no one had expected how heavy the summer went, with the exception of one moving company, who stopped accepting moves in mid-July for summer moves, because it would have exceeded their capacity and cascaded problems like yours throughout their system.