Section 39.11. Duties and obligations of brokers  


Latest version.
  • (a) A broker shall fairly protect the interest of a shipper/traveler employing his services, by providing or advising the shipper/traveler of the transportation services which, because of rates, schedules, type of motor carrier, or otherwise, will best meet the needs of the shipper/traveler and no broker may misrepresent or make false promises to a shipper/traveler with respect to the service rendered or to be rendered by a carrier.

    (b) No broker may knowingly misrepresent to a carrier the transportation to be provided or otherwise give to a carrier incorrect information which may affect the applicable charges for a particular transportation services.

    (c) No broker may charge or accept compensation from both a shipper/traveler and a carrier in connection with the same transportation for brokerage service without first advising both parties in writing of the amount and basis for the charge or payment by the other.

    (d) A broker shall exercise diligence to carry out an undertaking to arrange for desired transportation, to carry out the terms of its arrangements with a shipper/traveler or carrier and to pay promptly money received by him for the shipper/traveler or carrier.

    (e) A charge collected by a broker of property shall be paid in full to the carrier employed by him, without deduction for an amount due to him from the carrier.

Notation

Notes of Decisions

Misrepresentation

Evidence supported the administrative law judge’s determination that common carrier acted as an unlicensed broker where the carrier’s activities included advertising tours and arranging transportation, meals, admission tickets and lodging for points originating outside the scope of the carrier’s certificate going to points in Pennsylvania and returning to points outside the certificated areas. Moreover, all of the carrier’s advertisements promoted common carrier’s company and therefore if the carrier was in fact an agent for another, then the carrier’s advertisements should have promoted that principal. Waddington v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 670 A.2d 199 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995); appeal denied 678 A.2d 368 (Pa. 1996).