- 96 -
claims limitation based upon a Florida statute. The
freight forwarder argued that the limitation period stated in the
tariff was invalid as such power could only be granted by Federal
law. In holding against the freight forwarder, the court stated
that “The tariff filed by * * * [a freight forwarder] constituted
part of the contract of carriage between it and its customer”.
Id. at 273; see also Bd. of Water, Light and Sinking Fund Commrs.
v. FERC, 294 F.3d 1317, 1319 n.2 (11th Cir. 2002); Atlanta Gas
Light Co. v. FERC, 140 F.3d 1392, 1395 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998) (“A
tariff is the ‘contract which governs a pipeline’s service to its
customers.’”); ANR Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 931 F.2d 88, 90 n.1
(D.C. Cir. 1991); Bell S. Telecomm., Inc. v. Jacobs, 834 So. 2d
855, 859 (Fla. 2002); Bella Boutique Corp. v. Venezolana
Internacional de Aviacion, S.A., 459 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla. Ct.
App. 1984) (“A validly filed tariff constitutes the contract of
carriage between the parties and conclusively and exclusively
governs the rights and liabilities between the parties.”).
In Bell Atl. Corp. v. United States, 82 AFTR 2d 7375, 99-1
USTC par. 50,119 (E.D. Pa. 1998), the District Court discussed
this issue at length. That court examined whether TRA section
204(a)(3) entitled the taxpayer to an ITC based upon, inter alia,
a tariff. As that court stated: “A contract is ‘a promise or
set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy,
or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a
Page: Previous 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011