- 75 -
testimony that “the trucking companies were informed during the
sales process that they would be subject to the per diem
deduction limitation.” Petitioner is correct that the Court did
not rely on such testimony of Mr. DeBerg. That is because such
testimony was uncorroborated, served the interests of his
employer TLC, and was inconsistent with section fourteen of the
exclusive lease agreement.50
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioner has failed to carry its burden of
demonstrating unusual circumstances or substantial error in
Transport Labor I. On that record, we shall deny petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner’s Motion To Vacate
In support of petitioner’s position that the Court’s
50Sec. fourteen of each exclusive lease agreement provides:
This Agreement contains the complete agreement
concerning the lease arrangement between the parties
and shall, as of the effective date hereof, supercede
[sic] all other agreements between the parties. The
parties stipulate that neither of them has made any
representations with respect to the subject matter of
this Agreement or any representations * * * except such
representations as are specifically set forth herein
and each of the parties hereto acknowledges that he or
they have relied on their own judgement in entering
into this Agreement. The parties hereto further ac-
knowledge that any payments or representations that may
have heretofore been made by either of them to the
other are of no effect and that neither of them has
relied thereon in connection with his or their dealings
with the other. [Emphasis added.]
Page: Previous 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011