This morning is 13505-6S to express lines versus United States. This is about the end of the race. Thank you, honor. It's a pleasure to be before this court this morning, and especially to represent STs expressed. This issue before you has never been addressed by this panel before, by this court before, so whatever two of you come up with is going to be the law. So y'all have the opportunities to plow, plow, do you ground? The Marine Corps changed, contracted with Salem, a federally authorized freight broker, and normally you would expect a freight broker to enter into subcontractors with some one light STs expressed. That did not happen here. Salem did not enter into any of these. Is that, I saw something in the court of claims opinion that suggested that there was some contract between... There was no contract, you honor, between... You said, and I think I've got this right, but tell me if I'm right, I think there was an allegation in your complaint that there was a contract, but the complaint may not govern once we're into the evidentiary part, and you now say there was not, in fact, any contract between Salem and Estes. Well, I guess I should be more clear, there's no written contract. There was a course of dealing between parties before Salem stopped paying bills, but there was no written contract that could have easily resolved the issues before the court today
. Well, I took it that this contract issue, I guess, is more harmful than helpful to you. There's clearly, there are bills of lading our contracts, and that's between you and Shipper and possibly Consignee, and we'll get to that. But under Johnson Controls, there's at least a possibility that some other contract might supersede some of those rights. So I took it that it's important to your case now that there not actually be another contract, in fact, a particular another contract provision, whether written or oral, between you and Salem, that changes the obligations that would otherwise follow from the bills of lading. Well, I think it would be disingenuous for me to tell the court that Estes would say it was not entitled to payment from Salem. But under federal transportation law, even if there is a contract there, that bill of lading still creates privity between the Shipper, which, and this is kind of an odd situation, because this is inbound freight, rather than outbound freight. Normally, normally when we're talking about freight, we're talking about a manufacturer somewhere who's making something and arranging for Shipper of its own product. So that party is the Shipper and is also the Consigneur. Here, we've changed those because technically the Shipper here is the party of arranging for Shipper, which is the Marine Corps change. And while the freight does not agree to, as to all of your claims, or are there some private party Shippers, or is it true that, as to everything at stake here, the government is both Shipper and Consigne, or at least Shipper. The government is Shipper and Consignee in all of the shipments. And sometimes they're actually the Consigneur and the Consignee. And the distinction is the Consigneur is where the freight originates. Now, it may not be, in this case, the Safi company was on some of the bills of lading we submitted to the court as exemplars. Who is, were they? They make clothes. And those clothes are in turn sold in the Marine Corps exchange
. And so that entity is the Consigneur because that's where the freight originates. Now, most of the time, probably 80, 90% of the time in the freight world, your Consignee, your Consigneur and your Shipper are the same person. But here, those have been broken because the Marine Corps exchange is actually a range of for inbound freight. So rather than having Safi ship the freight, the Marine Corps arranges for ship another freight through. It's purchasing agent, as you mentioned, the Jones company. And so, I mean, is it disputed? I just want to understand what's in dispute. Do I take it? It's not disputed. That as to everything that's an issue here, the government is both Shipper and Consignee. I believe that's true, you are. And do I take it also that outside government context, ordinary bill of lading law, both of those, particularly somebody who is the same person, but in both positions, would in fact be a party to the cons of the bill of lading. That's correct, Your Honor. Outside of the government, Lingo. Now, let me make one more distinction, or one more point, along those lines of your question, your inquiry. When outside of, in transportation law, merely because there's a sale, doesn't mean there's not privity because of the bill of lading. So, if you look at these cases, you can argue about who owes the freight, and you can go out and you can look at Oak Harbor and commercial metals and all those types of cases. And you'll see in that, that no one ever says there's no privity, because there's always privity with the bill of lading
. There's, there's, there's got to be a reason to establish privity, and here, the, the bill of lading mentioned some Marine Corps only in somewhat passing as the, the, the pay or, I mean, it's got, it says to bill to the Marine Corps in caro salam. How does that establish privity? Your Honor, I believe that, that, I'll let the only mention of the Marine Corps in the bill of lading. Well, the, the Marine Corps is also the consignee in the bill of lading, or at least one of their locations, one of the Marine Corps locations is going to be the consignee. But, but also on the, where it says in the bill two box, in that bill two box, it says, it, it doesn't say salam. And I guess that would be, that would be the, the best way to say it is if, if it, if it says salam, then I think the government's argument might be well. But, but, if this knows that salam made the arrangements correct, certainly your honor, that, but, but again, if we take this out of the government context, there's, there's no question that, that the Marine Corps exchange is still liable for the Frank, even though there is a sale. There's no question about that. How do you arrive at that when it just simply says Marine Corps and then to, to be able to care of and at least the other address? I mean, in the shipping world, you do have the, the, the broker, the contacts the shipper and makes all the shipping arrangements. You're dealing with the, with the broker at that point, not the Marine Corps. Your honor, that's correct in a certain way of speaking, but legally, that broker does not break the liability of the shipper for freight charges. And, and if we were to, if we were to go and look at, for example, the hawkspear case and the four circuit, the oak harbor case and the ninth circuit, those types of cases make it very clear that, that, that absence some specific language to the contrary, which doesn't exist here, that the, that the shipper, the party arranging for shipment remains liable for the freight, even though they have to pay twice. They may have to pay a broker who goes out of business. And then they have to pay the carrier who didn't get paid in first time. And so that is, that is one of the cases we cite in our brief says the bedrock rule of motor carrier law is the carrier. That's true, but you're talking between the government and the, and the broker, not between the transportation company and the government. And your honor raises a good point
. Maybe that's a point that we talk about later. And, and when we talk about the merits of the case, at this point, the only thing that our obligation is to prove some evidence of privity. And I think that, like, if we were, if we were, if we were not in this court, and we were in a, in a, in a private court without the government involvement, nobody would say there's no privity here because there's, there's absolute privity between the parties to the bill of labor. And so the, and so, and so we've got to get to privity. And then we can talk about who's ultimately liable for the, for the freight, but the court, the court below dismissed the case based on lack of privity and lack of a money mandate statute. We believe that, obviously, that was incorrect. The, and the government here, I'm remembering right that the government in its contract with Salem directed Salem to use. Standard commercial bill of lady, there, there was in close to that or might. There was, there was some language in the, in the Salem government contract that said what was supposed to be in the, in the, on the bill of lady. And it's specifically directing Salem, right to use the bill to language. No, no, I'm, and I'm talking about something that's maybe a, even prior to not prior temporarily, but logically prior to that. Did the government specifically somehow endorse the use of the standard for bill of lady? The contract doesn't say every term that has to be in the bill of lady, but they do direct. And, and, and, the, they're under modern, de-regulated freight. I guess, and here's what I guess I'm remembering at a 64 that the contract dictates that Salem insures vendors complete bills of lading in accordance with the rules of the national motor freight uniform freight classification. Right. And, and the, the, the NMFC as, as that's described there, has standard language in its bill of lady that would govern this type of freight
. This is, this is what's called less than truckload freight, which means a truck has the freight of the number of shippers on it at the same time. And so that's where the NMFC bill of lady comes in. And, and that, and that, that bill of lady would, would have options for the government to disclaim liability for freight charges and those, that, that, that, those, those options for disclaiming freight charges were not taken. So, so there were, there were ways that the bill of lady could have been completed that would have said the government is not responsible for freight charges. That, that did not happen. What about count one of your complain. I'm looking at page 15 of the record paragraph 16 that says pursuant to the bill of lady, defendant Salem is directly liable to the plan of freight target promotes broken by sale. Aren't you aren't you there making a concession and admission that, that it's, say it on that's directly liable to, to the plan of for those charges and not the government. And, and you all know that that, that sounds foreign to you that, that, that, that, that the broker and the shipper can still be on the hook or the same freight. But absolutely that's our position is that the broker is, is liable and the shipper. And we have to, you're trying to establish privity under the bill of lady, right. Yes, and then, yet you, you inform the court in your complaint that looking at the bill of lady, that's the defendant Salem is directly liable to the plan. Isn't, aren't you saying the parameters of your, of your claim. I don't believe so, your honor, because I think that our, our position is that both parties are liable. And if, if Salem had paid it, that would have extinguished the liability of the Marine Corps exchange. But under motor carrier law, when, when, when the broker doesn't pay the carrier, excuse me, the shipper
. In this case, the Marine Corps change remains on the hook. Why don't you give him government? Thank you, our savior, the bottle. Mr. Volk. May please the court. Court of Federal claims properly dismissed the complaint in this case, relax your restriction and the court should affirm. Estes did not have a contract with the government. Why isn't the bill of lady exactly that? Bill of lady is a subcontract. Why? Contract between Salem. Sorry, Salem did not contract with the United States to provide transportation. It contracted with the United States to provide a service of arranging transportation by others. So, Estes was not performing a duty that under the contract that Salem had with the United States was a duty Salem owed. That's what a subcontractor does. The contractor says, I will provide to the owner a certain good or service and then the contractor goes out and gets other people to help provide that. Estes wasn't providing brokerage or arranging services. Well, you're on the contract routinely refers to subcontractors, carriers, vendors
. The contract obligated Salem to arrange for the transportation. And who Salem chose to carry the loads was for Salem to decide. Is there something specifically in the Salem government contract that refers to carriers as subcontractors? I don't know of anything in the contractor honor that links that they use the word carrier and subcontractor at the same time. There is the use of the word subcontractor. So Salem couldn't go out and hire some other transportation arranging company to fulfill its namely Salem's duties. Not without the authorization of the government. That would be a subcontractor. We're too busy. We need some help from other arranging companies. So what some language I do want to point out to you, your honor, on J-A-53 in response to your first question, is that at the top of that page, the contract with Salem provides that the contractor, meaning Salem, shall furnish all personnel services and supplies, including contractors, costs and profits necessary to provide labor, transportation and freight management services to the headquarters. And so our view is that this contract made Salem responsible for providing the transportation that was necessary and how to go about that was up to Salem. I'm sorry. This seems actually absolutely at the heart of the case. So I want to stay with this. At A-53 what contractor shall furnish is not transportation. It's transportation and freight management services
. Estus didn't. Estus is providing transportation. Salem was not obligated here to provide transportation. It's obligated to provide management services. It certainly was the contemplation of the government in Salem that Salem would hire carriers by guests. Would hire them. The contemplation was that Estus would, that the carriers would be in a contractual relationship with Salem to do something Salem had promised to do, like provide the actual carriage. A little bit confused by phrasing, but the expectation of the government certainly was that Salem would contract with carriers to provide transportation services. Understandable bills of lading in which the government with shipper and consigny and under ordinary bill of lading law was actually in privity with the carrier. The government would not be in privity with the carrier. Has a shipper and consigny it wouldn't. No, because the government had made other arrangements. And so as some of the cases like the O-Carb and Mercay's records, party is free to contract anyway it wishes. If it contracts other than through a bill of lading in advance, it's those terms that will govern. And in response to some of the things that came up during Mr. Mosley's argument, I do want to make sure the court is aware of paragraphs five and six in the complaint
. Estes is bound by the complaint. Why is it, why does the allegate, I guess maybe for this way, why isn't it perfectly possible for them to allege do a liability, broker's libel and also of course shipper consigny libel, why is one inconsistent with the other? It's not necessarily inconsistent in all cases, in some cases, whereas just between private parties, there may be liability amongst more than one party. But in this case, the first step that Estes has to do or hurdle that Estes has to meet is to establish jurisdiction. In its complaint, Estes are used or ledges jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. But Estes doesn't have any contract with the government. There's not even an allegation that Estes can claim. But this is what I guess I keep getting stuck on and I, the bill of lading is a contract between the carrier and the shipper and the consigny. Here the United States is at the same time shipper consigny. If you didn't know anything more, the carrier, namely Estes has a contract, each fill of lading with the United States. So what's either wrong with that or overrides it? What's first wrong with that is paragraph six of the complaint. Paragraph six of the complaint on GA-14 says under the bill is waiting various MCX locations were listed as the consigny, while various third parties were listed as the shipper. So that's the first part, that's wrong. Now, the part is to why the consigny, which here is a ledge to be. So I did ask of just a factual question of your friend on the other side. Is all of the dispute here about shipments in which the United States was shipper? He said yes and that wasn't disputed. Are you disputing that? Yes, under the complaint, that's not what the complaint says
. So the facts that we're working with are what's alleged in the complaint and that is not what is alleged in the complaint. Were additional facts introduced or argument at the motion, the motion state that amended or that the court considered in addition to what was alleged in the complaint? The only factual matters that the court looked at beyond what was in the complaint was what was in what is undisputed as the contract between the Marine Court and Salem. Other than that, there wasn't any inquiry that I recall beyond the facts that were alleged in the complaint and those were treated as true. You don't deny that a bill relating as a contract. It usually is when it comes to the government, it gets a little bit more complicated. There's a difference between straight and straight. Let me start with the usually is. So typically a bill relating is a contract between several parties, two parties are warned. Correct. Okay. So if we want to see who those parties are, we look to the face of the bill relating. Yes, assuming there's no other previous contract. Well, between estus and the government, there is no other other contract. There's no contract at all between that. Okay. So let's look at the bill lady and see if the government and the and estus are named in the contract. It seems to me that they are. They're not your honor. If you look at the bill of relating and so for example on J 138. The billing box. Right. And the important words even are in the header to the billing box, which is third part. Would pay you a reading please. Appendix 138 is an example. And so estus provided to the court at the at the motion to dismiss stage five sets of shipping documents. And one of those three documents, reach those five sets is a sample bill of relating. And so the ship, ship, ship from is on this one on 138 MJ Sophie company. The ship to is a Marine Corps exchange location. And then it indicates third party freight charges bill two. And it says Marine Corps exchange. Here of Salem logistics. But you have the Marines that are receiving the shipment
. It seems to me that they are. They're not your honor. If you look at the bill of relating and so for example on J 138. The billing box. Right. And the important words even are in the header to the billing box, which is third part. Would pay you a reading please. Appendix 138 is an example. And so estus provided to the court at the at the motion to dismiss stage five sets of shipping documents. And one of those three documents, reach those five sets is a sample bill of relating. And so the ship, ship, ship from is on this one on 138 MJ Sophie company. The ship to is a Marine Corps exchange location. And then it indicates third party freight charges bill two. And it says Marine Corps exchange. Here of Salem logistics. But you have the Marines that are receiving the shipment. And under the agreement that that estus entered into the billing the Marine Corps exchange. In care of sale. So for as estus. Distensor on the face of this document. Salem is just collecting money and put in the back for the Marine Corps. This is the Marine Corps that's that that is receiving the the the revenue. Receiving the shipment and paying Salem's bill. The contract between the Marine Corps and Salem provided on appendix 59 and 60. The Marine Corps pays sale. Salem pays the carriers. It wasn't the government that went to estes and told estes to come pick up this load. It was sale. And this instrument here is something generated by the vendor. But it's it is an instrument between estes and sale. Subcontracts cannot create privity with the government. No matter what is it that the bill of relating is not a contract between the carrier and the shipper
. And under the agreement that that estus entered into the billing the Marine Corps exchange. In care of sale. So for as estus. Distensor on the face of this document. Salem is just collecting money and put in the back for the Marine Corps. This is the Marine Corps that's that that is receiving the the the revenue. Receiving the shipment and paying Salem's bill. The contract between the Marine Corps and Salem provided on appendix 59 and 60. The Marine Corps pays sale. Salem pays the carriers. It wasn't the government that went to estes and told estes to come pick up this load. It was sale. And this instrument here is something generated by the vendor. But it's it is an instrument between estes and sale. Subcontracts cannot create privity with the government. No matter what is it that the bill of relating is not a contract between the carrier and the shipper. They would put aside these examples of about softly. But if you look at the complaint the complaint says in the paragraph you were reading from that various shippers including the Navy, including the United States, entered into these things. So it perhaps it doesn't matter at this point whether all of the bill of latings involved the United States is shipper. The allegation of the complaint is some of them. Yes except that in response to the government's motion it is noteworthy we think that all five of these sets of shipping documents. None of them have the government as the shipping or shipper. Your ship from hearty. However we're. The court of federal claims said I think in terms in some cases government entities were listed as both consigny and shipper. And we're not and to be clear I'm sorry we're not just eating at this point. We will treat that as true. Okay well let's let's assume that focus on one bill of latings we don't have one that we can look at. But we assume now its existence. There's one that says shipper United States consigny United States estes carrier. And what's more although it may not in fact be relevant here's what you do about billing. You build to the United States care of this other company sale
. They would put aside these examples of about softly. But if you look at the complaint the complaint says in the paragraph you were reading from that various shippers including the Navy, including the United States, entered into these things. So it perhaps it doesn't matter at this point whether all of the bill of latings involved the United States is shipper. The allegation of the complaint is some of them. Yes except that in response to the government's motion it is noteworthy we think that all five of these sets of shipping documents. None of them have the government as the shipping or shipper. Your ship from hearty. However we're. The court of federal claims said I think in terms in some cases government entities were listed as both consigny and shipper. And we're not and to be clear I'm sorry we're not just eating at this point. We will treat that as true. Okay well let's let's assume that focus on one bill of latings we don't have one that we can look at. But we assume now its existence. There's one that says shipper United States consigny United States estes carrier. And what's more although it may not in fact be relevant here's what you do about billing. You build to the United States care of this other company sale. That really isn't a contract with the United States. No it doesn't it doesn't have the elements required to establish a contract with the United States. And actually a good a good persuasive discussion of this although not binding on this court is in the court of federal claims decision in YR6. It actually involved the exact same contract with Salem that's an issue here in another carrier. So it's a recover against the government for. I'm just not sure that that discussion is persuasive that's all I mean I realize it's a discussion of the point but I take it from the ninth circuit. It's a good case in like three or four other circuits that it's absolutely rock solid accepted law on bills of latings that they are contracts between the carrier and the shipper. Even when there's a broker who's maybe arrangements in the absence of another contract in which the. So is that correct the government government position is that even if there were no other contracts between the government and Salem out there then yes you would accept the notion that this is the contract in this. But it's the government position that in this circumstance there's an overriding contract which establishes the relationship between the parties and so that overrides whatever one would take away from this bill of lading is that the government position. It's certainly the government's position that that overriding contract with Salem is what defines the government's rights but that's the only contract in which the government. It's the government's made made acceptance by the government which in which there was a mutual sense of entering to that contract with these bills of lading you do not have an authorized representative of the United States who's putting up so that the shipper is figuratively standing at the loading dock and saying dear carrier please accept this for for carriage. I mean that nobody could have walked into the Navy supply store outside the government syrup ticiously took the Navy's goods and put them on the carrier that was the government right there is someone who works for the government at the warehouse not not a person who's authorized enter into contracts because the contract had already been entered into by the authorized contracting officer in Salem. So there's an ordinary bill of lading law the shipper has a contract with S.D.S
. That really isn't a contract with the United States. No it doesn't it doesn't have the elements required to establish a contract with the United States. And actually a good a good persuasive discussion of this although not binding on this court is in the court of federal claims decision in YR6. It actually involved the exact same contract with Salem that's an issue here in another carrier. So it's a recover against the government for. I'm just not sure that that discussion is persuasive that's all I mean I realize it's a discussion of the point but I take it from the ninth circuit. It's a good case in like three or four other circuits that it's absolutely rock solid accepted law on bills of latings that they are contracts between the carrier and the shipper. Even when there's a broker who's maybe arrangements in the absence of another contract in which the. So is that correct the government government position is that even if there were no other contracts between the government and Salem out there then yes you would accept the notion that this is the contract in this. But it's the government position that in this circumstance there's an overriding contract which establishes the relationship between the parties and so that overrides whatever one would take away from this bill of lading is that the government position. It's certainly the government's position that that overriding contract with Salem is what defines the government's rights but that's the only contract in which the government. It's the government's made made acceptance by the government which in which there was a mutual sense of entering to that contract with these bills of lading you do not have an authorized representative of the United States who's putting up so that the shipper is figuratively standing at the loading dock and saying dear carrier please accept this for for carriage. I mean that nobody could have walked into the Navy supply store outside the government syrup ticiously took the Navy's goods and put them on the carrier that was the government right there is someone who works for the government at the warehouse not not a person who's authorized enter into contracts because the contract had already been entered into by the authorized contracting officer in Salem. So there's an ordinary bill of lading law the shipper has a contract with S.D.S. and you're saying that there's another contract not a contract involving S.D.S. that overrides S.D.S. rights. Did you're pointing to a contract namely the Salem Marine Corps contract to which S.D.S. was a stranger. Maybe this is a clear way to say it the only way in which S.D.S. in these circumstances would have contract rights under bill of lading is if it were a government bill of lading. A government bill of lading is a number of cases indicate is different than a straight bill of lading these were straight bills of lading a government bill of lading has a signature from a government authorized person
. and you're saying that there's another contract not a contract involving S.D.S. that overrides S.D.S. rights. Did you're pointing to a contract namely the Salem Marine Corps contract to which S.D.S. was a stranger. Maybe this is a clear way to say it the only way in which S.D.S. in these circumstances would have contract rights under bill of lading is if it were a government bill of lading. A government bill of lading is a number of cases indicate is different than a straight bill of lading these were straight bills of lading a government bill of lading has a signature from a government authorized person. It's an add is a contract between the government and a carrier. Even though there's a whole bunch of I think is it federal acquisition regulations or I think it's federal acquisition regulations a government bills of lading basically use for international and a few other things or otherwise. Your government use ordinarily ordinary commercial bills of lading and that's not an acknowledgement of the ordinary law that applies to who's obliged and not obliged on those standard documents. No, you're not not understanding exactly what you mean by ordinary commercial bills of lading commercial bill of lading something other than what's called a government bill of lading. The way we understand how the government generally acquires transportation is that most frequently there's a tender if there's not a broker in this case where you have a contract like we did here with the government. So you'd have a tender offer from a carrier and then you'd have a government bill of lading in response to that offer accepting its terms and forming a contract. I think we think that's expressed in forgetting whether it's don't from this court or interpostal express. But that that arrangement is not what we had here. Here we had the government enter into one contract. The authorized government official entered into one contract that contract was was with Salem. The court of federal claims properly recognized that the relationship between S.D.'s and Salem was as a subcontractor. And so I did the government then insist that the payment box include the Marine Corps. I mean that was a contractual obligation that the payments are to be made to the Marine Corps caro Salem. What that box reflects your honor is the provisions in the contract and it will read the whole contract
. It's an add is a contract between the government and a carrier. Even though there's a whole bunch of I think is it federal acquisition regulations or I think it's federal acquisition regulations a government bills of lading basically use for international and a few other things or otherwise. Your government use ordinarily ordinary commercial bills of lading and that's not an acknowledgement of the ordinary law that applies to who's obliged and not obliged on those standard documents. No, you're not not understanding exactly what you mean by ordinary commercial bills of lading commercial bill of lading something other than what's called a government bill of lading. The way we understand how the government generally acquires transportation is that most frequently there's a tender if there's not a broker in this case where you have a contract like we did here with the government. So you'd have a tender offer from a carrier and then you'd have a government bill of lading in response to that offer accepting its terms and forming a contract. I think we think that's expressed in forgetting whether it's don't from this court or interpostal express. But that that arrangement is not what we had here. Here we had the government enter into one contract. The authorized government official entered into one contract that contract was was with Salem. The court of federal claims properly recognized that the relationship between S.D.'s and Salem was as a subcontractor. And so I did the government then insist that the payment box include the Marine Corps. I mean that was a contractual obligation that the payments are to be made to the Marine Corps caro Salem. What that box reflects your honor is the provisions in the contract and it will read the whole contract. It's very clear. We may have a different story if if it never did say Marine Corps caro Salem, but it does say that. And it does say that at the instruction of the government that told Salem each one of these bills of lading must include this legend. What what that reflects your honor is is in the contract and looking at appendix page 99. The way the contract requires that all shipments that are FOB origin must be shipped on a third party collect bill of lading. Free charges are not to be added to emergendize voice unless you're directed to do so by Salem logistics or MCX operations. When you prepare the bill you will indicate that the free charges should be third party bill. So this language simply reflects your arrangement that is very clear in the contract. That is that the government will pay Salem and Salem will pay the the carrier. And it doesn't it could have done that without having that information placed on the bill of lading. I don't know for sure whether that's true or not your honor. Well, why couldn't they just agree? You you you contract with the with the presentation company collect the revenue and then you pay me you you send me the check. Why does the check have to be made out to the government. The check would not be made out to the government. I mean the government's writing the checks and sending them to Salem. Now why it needed to include that exact language on the bill of lading or did it
. It's very clear. We may have a different story if if it never did say Marine Corps caro Salem, but it does say that. And it does say that at the instruction of the government that told Salem each one of these bills of lading must include this legend. What what that reflects your honor is is in the contract and looking at appendix page 99. The way the contract requires that all shipments that are FOB origin must be shipped on a third party collect bill of lading. Free charges are not to be added to emergendize voice unless you're directed to do so by Salem logistics or MCX operations. When you prepare the bill you will indicate that the free charges should be third party bill. So this language simply reflects your arrangement that is very clear in the contract. That is that the government will pay Salem and Salem will pay the the carrier. And it doesn't it could have done that without having that information placed on the bill of lading. I don't know for sure whether that's true or not your honor. Well, why couldn't they just agree? You you you contract with the with the presentation company collect the revenue and then you pay me you you send me the check. Why does the check have to be made out to the government. The check would not be made out to the government. I mean the government's writing the checks and sending them to Salem. Now why it needed to include that exact language on the bill of lading or did it. I don't know it may not have needed to and perhaps that's what makes this case different from the other. Now it doesn't make it different from all the other cases it makes it different from some of the other cases for example the YRC case is exactly the same. It's the exact same. And that was a quarter federal claims case it's not it's not finding on this court. But what the court of federal claims has invariably decided is that carriers have to demonstrate. The court of federal claims to demonstrate. If you don't have a contract with the government. The Canada established jurisdiction in this court. SCs didn't have a contract with the government those bills of waiting. You do not have a signature of a government representative anywhere on. You do not have authorization from an authorized government representative anywhere on. And the court of federal claims properly dismissed the case. I see I'm well over my time. Thank you. Mr. Mostly any final thoughts
. I don't know it may not have needed to and perhaps that's what makes this case different from the other. Now it doesn't make it different from all the other cases it makes it different from some of the other cases for example the YRC case is exactly the same. It's the exact same. And that was a quarter federal claims case it's not it's not finding on this court. But what the court of federal claims has invariably decided is that carriers have to demonstrate. The court of federal claims to demonstrate. If you don't have a contract with the government. The Canada established jurisdiction in this court. SCs didn't have a contract with the government those bills of waiting. You do not have a signature of a government representative anywhere on. You do not have authorization from an authorized government representative anywhere on. And the court of federal claims properly dismissed the case. I see I'm well over my time. Thank you. Mr. Mostly any final thoughts. Thank you. I would go back to the point that we're talking about privity. And we're if we're in any other court in the country and we're talking about privity nobody's even discussing the fact that there's no privity between a shipper, a constantly and the carrier. So I would submit that does it does it matter that there's no signature from the shipper on the bill of waiting. There is a signature on the delivery receipt which has that will be at the delivery location. So all of these all of these. I think I'm not. The cost of the the Marine Corps exchange location and obviously there were there were many of them to which these goods were shipped. Someone would have signed the delivery receipt there and received a copy of the bill of waiting at that point. Why why when why did you submit only bills of waiting that don't list the United States as a shipper. Well, you're on the there there is in the record or that approximately a fourth of the of the shipments were basic change transfers. So there was an abundance of product that one basic change it was shipped to another basic change. So in those roughly 20 25% of the shipments they the government would have been constantly and shipper. The however I would I would point out that the shipper that there is a shipper box on the bills of waiting that are submitted. That it says shipper but it really if if if if we were going to be analyzing that from a legal standpoint it should say constant war because that's just the location where it was picked up. That was not the party arranging for the ship and afraid and so the shipper in this case in all of these bills of waiting
. The party arranging for the shipment is the Marine Corps exchange through its agent statement. I mean how do we know that whether by some paragraph of your complaint or otherwise that all of the bills of waiting involved here involved the United States as shipper. Well you're on the position we would take is that Marine Corps exchange hired Salem and therefore they were whether the Marine Corps exchange did it through their own shipping clerks that Marine Corps exchange employees run in the shipping department or whether they outsource that to a broker. That process arranging for shipment in either respect they would be the shipper so they would be the party arranging for shipment so whether they do it themselves through through government employees working at the Marine Corps exchange or whether they do it through Salem as an outsource process they would they would still be and we've alleged that in the complaint that that's the way to process work. Thank you