I think terryandrene can solve this problem.Do you remember the Bristol,TN O/O who would not pay the contracted percentage of truck income from the Fedex CC contest at the end of 2005?I need some proof -in print-that truck D5406 was picked as a winner.I understand the results were printed in the Jan 2006 Fedex CC quartely newsletter.The company will offer no help at all.Can you get me a copy of this publication? contact me at 856-684-0701 JJ
Fedex CC quartely newsletter
- Thread starter lap2
- Start date
Doggie Daddy
Veteran Expediter
lap2,you are correct that the unit you mentioned was a winner of the contest. you will not be able to get deep enough into FECC site to see that,as you are not a contractor. the newsletters are sent only to contractors so you won't be able to get it yourself.you are going to need some help from a contractor to get the information that you seek.
p.s. i also think that they have discontinued mailing the newsletters to contractors, as it has been quite awhile since i have received one.DD.
p.s. i also think that they have discontinued mailing the newsletters to contractors, as it has been quite awhile since i have received one.DD.
LAP2: I, too, will confirm that truck D5406 was a drawing winner of the safety pays incentive award.
Terry
Terry
I'm not quite sure why Fedex would not release this kind of information to you. It may require a attorney to get it through a court order. You should recoup those costs as they should be added to any pending suit.
Davekc
owner
21 years
PantherII
EO moderator
Davekc
owner
21 years
PantherII
EO moderator
DannyD
Veteran Expediter
If he's the one who achieved the incentive, I think he has a good shot at getting it. I just saw a show on court cases a couple of months ago. While every now & then someone gets out of something they morally owe on a technicality, most of the time the judge will enforce the "intent" of the law.
This show was based on this very thing. Another thing it showed was that yes, every now & then someone breaks into a house, slips & the owner ends up getting sued. Those stories seem to makes national news. It went on to say that MOST of the time judges use their heads & the burgler gets ab-so-friggen-lutely NOTHING but a jail term. It's those exceptional cases where ya have a bone-headed judge or maybe a little something more than meets the eye that give our laws a bad name. Most of the time justice is meted out pretty accurately.
It also showed a few cases where the "law" would have ruled one way yet the judge used common sense & ruled in favor of someone else. A case that comes to mind is this elderly lady didn't pay her (I think) property taxes. Her husband had always paid them but then he passed away. Some company was trying to evict her from her house. Legally they were right. This judge ruled in the lady's favor though. He didn't just thumb his nose at the law in this company's face, but he used his common sense to come to a fair settlement for all parties. It's a lil more detailed than I'm explaining here, but the end result is the lady was able to stay in her house.
Based on what I saw on this show, I would say provided this man's side of the story is accurate, he's got a pretty good shot at getting what is owed to him.
Good luck to him,
Danny
This show was based on this very thing. Another thing it showed was that yes, every now & then someone breaks into a house, slips & the owner ends up getting sued. Those stories seem to makes national news. It went on to say that MOST of the time judges use their heads & the burgler gets ab-so-friggen-lutely NOTHING but a jail term. It's those exceptional cases where ya have a bone-headed judge or maybe a little something more than meets the eye that give our laws a bad name. Most of the time justice is meted out pretty accurately.
It also showed a few cases where the "law" would have ruled one way yet the judge used common sense & ruled in favor of someone else. A case that comes to mind is this elderly lady didn't pay her (I think) property taxes. Her husband had always paid them but then he passed away. Some company was trying to evict her from her house. Legally they were right. This judge ruled in the lady's favor though. He didn't just thumb his nose at the law in this company's face, but he used his common sense to come to a fair settlement for all parties. It's a lil more detailed than I'm explaining here, but the end result is the lady was able to stay in her house.
Based on what I saw on this show, I would say provided this man's side of the story is accurate, he's got a pretty good shot at getting what is owed to him.
Good luck to him,
Danny
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Lap2
I agree with RichM, it don’t matter what you think, if it is not I the contract, you will have a hard time getting anything. This is a contract issue between professionals, not a small claims case between two people over a sale of a car. I have to say this is a perfect example of the need to get a solid contract and go over it with a lawyer before you start driving.
Personal opinion –
Been there, done that.
You are wasting your time with $10K. I mean after you find a lawyer to take the case and then pay for their work in researching, before you go to court, you may spend a few thousand. If the lawyer takes the case on commission, you will pay 1/3 and any expenses plus still owe taxes on all money you get (meaning the entire $10K).
If it goes to court, the judge may view it as a waste of time and dismiss the case, leaving you with the bill or the judge may split the incentive by your split with the owner, 60/40 – which means that you still have to pay the lawyer and your part of the court cost. You may end up with a couple thousand, not worth the three months to two years litigating.
If this was $25K, I would say yea go ahead – but $10K.
I agree with RichM, it don’t matter what you think, if it is not I the contract, you will have a hard time getting anything. This is a contract issue between professionals, not a small claims case between two people over a sale of a car. I have to say this is a perfect example of the need to get a solid contract and go over it with a lawyer before you start driving.
Personal opinion –
Been there, done that.
You are wasting your time with $10K. I mean after you find a lawyer to take the case and then pay for their work in researching, before you go to court, you may spend a few thousand. If the lawyer takes the case on commission, you will pay 1/3 and any expenses plus still owe taxes on all money you get (meaning the entire $10K).
If it goes to court, the judge may view it as a waste of time and dismiss the case, leaving you with the bill or the judge may split the incentive by your split with the owner, 60/40 – which means that you still have to pay the lawyer and your part of the court cost. You may end up with a couple thousand, not worth the three months to two years litigating.
If this was $25K, I would say yea go ahead – but $10K.
I agree with the others....what ever the specific language is in your contract will be the driving issue as to whether it is worth pursuing.
I would agree that this is a business type contract issue. Most judges will interpret it just as it is written. Not likely to see any Judge Judy justice.
Davekc
owner
21 years
PantherII
EO moderator
I would agree that this is a business type contract issue. Most judges will interpret it just as it is written. Not likely to see any Judge Judy justice.
Davekc
owner
21 years
PantherII
EO moderator
DocRushing
Expert Expediter
FedEx CC quarterly newsletter
As we all hear repeatedly, there is usually more than one side to a story.
I strongly urge each of you to recall that principle -- and to use it -- in connection with this thread -- and the previous thread -- "lying owners" in the general expediter forum -- which lap2 also posted.
For the past 10.5 months my wife Marda and I have run for the same owner as did lap2.
We have found the owner to be completely honest, ethical, generous, straightforward, and cooperative.
He's a good guy -- a straight shooter.
We've never had the slightest reason to suspect that he has ever dealt with us with anything other than utmost integrity.
We just discovered these two threads -- because we recently came back home for some time off -- after three months away on the roll.
Naturally, I gently and politely asked the owner about this matter.
The owner does not yet own a computer, and he does not do the Internet.
So I've asked -- and gotten -- his permission for me to report to you what he told me.
Here's the essence of what the owner told me:
First, the co-driver left the truck (as lap2 described in "lying owners") because of his extreme displeasure about some of the personal habits and personal behavior of lap2 aboard the truck.
Second, lap2 incurred a rather large liability for both himself and the owner -- due to a wreck which lap2 had in the truck -- liability for damage to the owner's truck and to the other vehicle involved.
Third, lap2 tried to persuade the owner to send him a suspiciously large amount of money (via the Comdata mechanism) to replace a broken wing window on the truck -- after lap2 claimed that someone had broken into the truck -- but under circumstances which strongly suggested that lap2 had really locked himself out and had broken in the window himself.
Fourth, lap2 suddenly returned the truck to the owner, thereby limiting the owner's opportunity to withhold what lap2 owes to the owner.
Fifth, when lap2 returned the truck, he had thoroughly trashed the inside of the cab, and he had torn up and ruined the radio.
Sixth, when lap2 returned the truck, he left only a small amount of fuel (almost none at all), not nearly as much as he had contractually promised to leave in the tanks (the same amount as when he had picked up the truck).
Seventh, the drawing for the prize took place about a week after lap2 returned the truck to the owner.
By the way, lap2 griped (in "lying owners") that 57 percent is a "very low percentage."
However, most or all of us older heads regard 57 percent to be a completely reasonable percentage as a starting point for a newbie -- as lap2 called himself.
With due regard for those additional facts, the owner decided not to share the prize with lap2 -- not while lap2 owes him such a large amount.
Sooo -- now the rest of you decide for yourselves whether the claim of lap2 is as good as it first appears.
As I said at the outset, there is usually more than one side to a story.
As always, best wishes to each of you,
Doc.
second-generation professional driver --
mostly as an owner-operator (first in 1976)
As we all hear repeatedly, there is usually more than one side to a story.
I strongly urge each of you to recall that principle -- and to use it -- in connection with this thread -- and the previous thread -- "lying owners" in the general expediter forum -- which lap2 also posted.
For the past 10.5 months my wife Marda and I have run for the same owner as did lap2.
We have found the owner to be completely honest, ethical, generous, straightforward, and cooperative.
He's a good guy -- a straight shooter.
We've never had the slightest reason to suspect that he has ever dealt with us with anything other than utmost integrity.
We just discovered these two threads -- because we recently came back home for some time off -- after three months away on the roll.
Naturally, I gently and politely asked the owner about this matter.
The owner does not yet own a computer, and he does not do the Internet.
So I've asked -- and gotten -- his permission for me to report to you what he told me.
Here's the essence of what the owner told me:
First, the co-driver left the truck (as lap2 described in "lying owners") because of his extreme displeasure about some of the personal habits and personal behavior of lap2 aboard the truck.
Second, lap2 incurred a rather large liability for both himself and the owner -- due to a wreck which lap2 had in the truck -- liability for damage to the owner's truck and to the other vehicle involved.
Third, lap2 tried to persuade the owner to send him a suspiciously large amount of money (via the Comdata mechanism) to replace a broken wing window on the truck -- after lap2 claimed that someone had broken into the truck -- but under circumstances which strongly suggested that lap2 had really locked himself out and had broken in the window himself.
Fourth, lap2 suddenly returned the truck to the owner, thereby limiting the owner's opportunity to withhold what lap2 owes to the owner.
Fifth, when lap2 returned the truck, he had thoroughly trashed the inside of the cab, and he had torn up and ruined the radio.
Sixth, when lap2 returned the truck, he left only a small amount of fuel (almost none at all), not nearly as much as he had contractually promised to leave in the tanks (the same amount as when he had picked up the truck).
Seventh, the drawing for the prize took place about a week after lap2 returned the truck to the owner.
By the way, lap2 griped (in "lying owners") that 57 percent is a "very low percentage."
However, most or all of us older heads regard 57 percent to be a completely reasonable percentage as a starting point for a newbie -- as lap2 called himself.
With due regard for those additional facts, the owner decided not to share the prize with lap2 -- not while lap2 owes him such a large amount.
Sooo -- now the rest of you decide for yourselves whether the claim of lap2 is as good as it first appears.
As I said at the outset, there is usually more than one side to a story.
As always, best wishes to each of you,
Doc.
second-generation professional driver --
mostly as an owner-operator (first in 1976)
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
RE: FedEx CC quarterly newsletter
There are a few things that I'd like to add here. I don't know what the law is in TN; but in MI, a verbal agreement IS a contract. Doing a search on the subject, I would surmise it is binding in TN as well. If, in fact, the verbal agreement was 60/40 split, a case could be made.
Second... the owner witholding money due to negligence is a different matter. It's like an employer saying he's witholding your last paycheck because of damage to his property. Law says he can't do that. If it's in the contract, however, then that's a different story.
Finally... regardless of the driver quitting a week before the contest ending, the contest was won as THE result of the driver's performance. I would guess the contest would be seen as a performance bonus, which would also be considered pay.
Also, I'm surprised Greg and others would say this isn't worth going to court over. There's something called small claims, in which TN has a max of $15,000 in counties under 750,000 ppl and $25,000 in more populated counties. I say TN because the law says the venue will be where the defendant resides, or where the infraction occured. I would say a suit/countersuit would probably occur in this case. I'd like to hear what happens.
There are a few things that I'd like to add here. I don't know what the law is in TN; but in MI, a verbal agreement IS a contract. Doing a search on the subject, I would surmise it is binding in TN as well. If, in fact, the verbal agreement was 60/40 split, a case could be made.
Second... the owner witholding money due to negligence is a different matter. It's like an employer saying he's witholding your last paycheck because of damage to his property. Law says he can't do that. If it's in the contract, however, then that's a different story.
Finally... regardless of the driver quitting a week before the contest ending, the contest was won as THE result of the driver's performance. I would guess the contest would be seen as a performance bonus, which would also be considered pay.
Also, I'm surprised Greg and others would say this isn't worth going to court over. There's something called small claims, in which TN has a max of $15,000 in counties under 750,000 ppl and $25,000 in more populated counties. I say TN because the law says the venue will be where the defendant resides, or where the infraction occured. I would say a suit/countersuit would probably occur in this case. I'd like to hear what happens.
DocRushing
Expert Expediter
FedEx CC quarterly newsletter
Lap2 committed several serious breaches of his contractual duties to the owner, thereby leaving lap2 in debt to the owner.
The law allows the owner to deduct lap2's debt to him from lap2's share of the prize (or from any other amount which the owner may otherwise owe to lap2).
If lap2's debt to the owner reaches $5,700 (the amount which otherwise would be his share of the prize), then no part of the prize would be left over for lap2.
The claim by lap2 and the counterclaim by the owner make up a genuine business dispute.
Business disputes often occur.
That's why we have courts.
The amounts here are less than the maximum "jurisdictional amount" in the general-sessions ("small-claims") courts in Tennessee, so it would be proper to take this dispute to a general-sessions court.
In Tennessee, by the way, we do not have courts specifically called small-claims courts.
However, we do have a level of courts -- the lowest level of trial courts with general subject-matter jurisdiction -- where it's common for a party to appear by himself without an attorney -- called the courts of general sessions (sometimes called the general circus) -- which function as small-claims courts.
If lap2 sues the owner in a general-sessions court, and if lap2 appears at the appointed time, and if lap2 (in the view of the judge) sustains his burden of proof (by a "fair preponderance" of the evidence), then the owner has an opportunity to present his testimony and other evidence for his defense against lap2's claim and for his own counterclaim against lap2.
After the judge hears the evidence and the arguments from both sides, then the judge may rule in any of several ways, including these:
The judge may hold that lap2 has not sustained his burden of proof, in which event the judge will dismiss the case.
The judge may hold that lap2 is completely right, and that the owner is completely wrong, in which event the judge will order the owner to pay lap2 for his share of the prize.
The judge may hold that lap2 has a valid claim against the owner, and that the owner has a valid counterclaim against lap2, in which event the judge will order the owner to pay lap2 for the difference between lap2's claim and the owner's counterclaim (maybe a difference of $0).
The judge may hold that both the claim and the counterclaim are valid, and that the owner's counterclaim is larger than lap2's original claim, in which event the judge will order lap2 to pay the owner for the difference between the claim and the counterclaim.
The judge may hold that lap2's claim has no merit, and that the owner's counterclaim is completely right, in which event the judge will order lap2 to pay the owner for his counterclaim.
Of course, the judge also may make a decision somewhere within the outside corners of those alternatives.
At least two other possibilities also exist:
The judge, after hearing the evidence and the arguments, may decide, despite the respective merits of the two sides, that lap2 does not deserve the help of the court -- because of an ancient "maxim of equity" which says that if a person seeks justice from a court, he must enter the court with "clean hands" (or sometimes "clean hands and a pure heart"). That is, the judge may hold that lap2's hands are not clean hands, due to his previous behavior toward the owner.
Without specifically referring to the clean-hands doctrine, the judge, after hearing the evidence and the arguments, may decide that "it's not in the interest of justice" (due to the previous behavior of lap2 toward the owner) to order the owner to pay lap2 for his claim. (Yes, the judge has the discretion to do so.)
What matters here is not what any of us may think or feel about the competing claims or about the parties themselves.
What matters here is what the law requires or allows -- and what a judge may decide.
One incidental point: When an owner-operator leaves a carrier, a federal law allows the carrier up to 60 days to make the final settlement -- 60 days for the carrier to discover any amount which the contractor may owe to the carrier -- and to deduct (from the final payment to the contractor) the contractor's debt(s) to the carrier. By extension that law seems to provide a reasonable rule of thumb when a subcontractor (for example, lap2) leaves a contractor (owner-operator).
Speaking as a former professor of business (who specialized in business law), it appears to me that -- overall -- from a business viewpoint -- lap2's case is not a very strong or persuasive one.
Naturally, that's just the way I see it.
Sorry 'bout the length and the windiness.
Best wishes to all,
Doc.
professor of business, 1977-86
independent businessman, 1986-89
second-generation professional driver (mostly as owner-operator), 1976, 1989-2001, 2003-
volunteer worker aboard Mercy Ships, 2001-03
Lap2 committed several serious breaches of his contractual duties to the owner, thereby leaving lap2 in debt to the owner.
The law allows the owner to deduct lap2's debt to him from lap2's share of the prize (or from any other amount which the owner may otherwise owe to lap2).
If lap2's debt to the owner reaches $5,700 (the amount which otherwise would be his share of the prize), then no part of the prize would be left over for lap2.
The claim by lap2 and the counterclaim by the owner make up a genuine business dispute.
Business disputes often occur.
That's why we have courts.
The amounts here are less than the maximum "jurisdictional amount" in the general-sessions ("small-claims") courts in Tennessee, so it would be proper to take this dispute to a general-sessions court.
In Tennessee, by the way, we do not have courts specifically called small-claims courts.
However, we do have a level of courts -- the lowest level of trial courts with general subject-matter jurisdiction -- where it's common for a party to appear by himself without an attorney -- called the courts of general sessions (sometimes called the general circus) -- which function as small-claims courts.
If lap2 sues the owner in a general-sessions court, and if lap2 appears at the appointed time, and if lap2 (in the view of the judge) sustains his burden of proof (by a "fair preponderance" of the evidence), then the owner has an opportunity to present his testimony and other evidence for his defense against lap2's claim and for his own counterclaim against lap2.
After the judge hears the evidence and the arguments from both sides, then the judge may rule in any of several ways, including these:
The judge may hold that lap2 has not sustained his burden of proof, in which event the judge will dismiss the case.
The judge may hold that lap2 is completely right, and that the owner is completely wrong, in which event the judge will order the owner to pay lap2 for his share of the prize.
The judge may hold that lap2 has a valid claim against the owner, and that the owner has a valid counterclaim against lap2, in which event the judge will order the owner to pay lap2 for the difference between lap2's claim and the owner's counterclaim (maybe a difference of $0).
The judge may hold that both the claim and the counterclaim are valid, and that the owner's counterclaim is larger than lap2's original claim, in which event the judge will order lap2 to pay the owner for the difference between the claim and the counterclaim.
The judge may hold that lap2's claim has no merit, and that the owner's counterclaim is completely right, in which event the judge will order lap2 to pay the owner for his counterclaim.
Of course, the judge also may make a decision somewhere within the outside corners of those alternatives.
At least two other possibilities also exist:
The judge, after hearing the evidence and the arguments, may decide, despite the respective merits of the two sides, that lap2 does not deserve the help of the court -- because of an ancient "maxim of equity" which says that if a person seeks justice from a court, he must enter the court with "clean hands" (or sometimes "clean hands and a pure heart"). That is, the judge may hold that lap2's hands are not clean hands, due to his previous behavior toward the owner.
Without specifically referring to the clean-hands doctrine, the judge, after hearing the evidence and the arguments, may decide that "it's not in the interest of justice" (due to the previous behavior of lap2 toward the owner) to order the owner to pay lap2 for his claim. (Yes, the judge has the discretion to do so.)
What matters here is not what any of us may think or feel about the competing claims or about the parties themselves.
What matters here is what the law requires or allows -- and what a judge may decide.
One incidental point: When an owner-operator leaves a carrier, a federal law allows the carrier up to 60 days to make the final settlement -- 60 days for the carrier to discover any amount which the contractor may owe to the carrier -- and to deduct (from the final payment to the contractor) the contractor's debt(s) to the carrier. By extension that law seems to provide a reasonable rule of thumb when a subcontractor (for example, lap2) leaves a contractor (owner-operator).
Speaking as a former professor of business (who specialized in business law), it appears to me that -- overall -- from a business viewpoint -- lap2's case is not a very strong or persuasive one.
Naturally, that's just the way I see it.
Sorry 'bout the length and the windiness.
Best wishes to all,
Doc.
professor of business, 1977-86
independent businessman, 1986-89
second-generation professional driver (mostly as owner-operator), 1976, 1989-2001, 2003-
volunteer worker aboard Mercy Ships, 2001-03
RE: FedEx CC quarterly newsletter
I had the plesure of meeting "Doc" and Marta at the Knoxville Expo last March.However,I will not allow this issue to be tried publically in a chatroom.Apparently,this deadbeat,hen-pecked owner is not going to pay his contractual obligations.SO,I will be glad to publish the decision AND the owners name after the judgement is rendered in the General Sessions Court in Washington County,Tn.
"Doc",thanks for the Civics and Business Law tutorial.But if you think 57% of all truck income,including 57% of FSC and you pay all fuel costs,tolls,and workers comp. is a good deal,all those advance Degrees have gone to waste in the real world.
Thanks for the forum,and thanks for all your encouragement!
Regards,John Jordan
I had the plesure of meeting "Doc" and Marta at the Knoxville Expo last March.However,I will not allow this issue to be tried publically in a chatroom.Apparently,this deadbeat,hen-pecked owner is not going to pay his contractual obligations.SO,I will be glad to publish the decision AND the owners name after the judgement is rendered in the General Sessions Court in Washington County,Tn.
"Doc",thanks for the Civics and Business Law tutorial.But if you think 57% of all truck income,including 57% of FSC and you pay all fuel costs,tolls,and workers comp. is a good deal,all those advance Degrees have gone to waste in the real world.
Thanks for the forum,and thanks for all your encouragement!
Regards,John Jordan
RE: FedEx CC quarterly newsletter
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this. I am confused with how one arrives at 57 percent? Secondly, I am curious how the owner justifies taking a substantial percentage of the fuel surcharge?
Tell me that is just a typo.
Davekc
owner
21 years
PantherII
EO moderator
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this. I am confused with how one arrives at 57 percent? Secondly, I am curious how the owner justifies taking a substantial percentage of the fuel surcharge?
Tell me that is just a typo.
Davekc
owner
21 years
PantherII
EO moderator
RE: FedEx CC quarterly newsletter
Gentlemen,
I think it's best we lock this thread. We've heard both sides, and obviously both see it a different way.
This obviously seems to be headed towards a court case, and we need to leave it between the parties involved. Trying to advise one or the other further serves no purpose.
Thanks for your understanding.
Dreamer
Forums Administrator
Gentlemen,
I think it's best we lock this thread. We've heard both sides, and obviously both see it a different way.
This obviously seems to be headed towards a court case, and we need to leave it between the parties involved. Trying to advise one or the other further serves no purpose.
Thanks for your understanding.
Dreamer
Forums Administrator