Consolo petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review that decision, which we granted. The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the reparation award, concluding that '(i)n view of the substantial evidence showing that it would be inequitable to assess damages against Flota in favor of Consolo, * * * the Commission abused the discretion granted it under Section 22 of the Shipping Act 11 (to issue reparation awards) * * *.' 119 U.S.App.D.C. 10 Again Consolo maintained that the award was too small and Flota argued that it should be set aside in part or in whole. 9 Again, both Flota and Consolo appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, each intervened in the appeal of the other, and the two appeals were consolidated. It affirmed the Board's finding that Flota had violated the Shipping Act but remanded to the Board the issue of reparations so that it could 'consider whether, under all the circumstances, it is inequitable to force Flota to pay reparations * * *.' 7 On remand the Federal Maritime Commission 8 concluded that it was not inequitable to require Flota to pay Consolo reparations, although it did reduce the amount of the award. The Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction to consider these appeals. These appeals were consolidated together with Flota's appeal to set aside the Board's finding of a violation of the Shipping Act. 6 Both Flota and Consolo appealed from this reparation order and each intervened in the appeal of the other, Consolo asking that the reparation award be increased and Flota asking that it be set aside. In March 1961, the Board ordered Flota to pay Consolo certain reparations for the violation of the Shipping Act. This appeal was stayed, pending determination of the reparations proceeding. § 1032(c) (1964 ed.)), Flota petitioned the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to set aside this order. 5 Pursuant to § 2(c) of the Administrative Orders Review Act ( 64 Stat. These proceedings were consolidated and, in June, 1959, the Board ruled that Flota's three-year exclusive contract with Panama Ecuador violated the Shipping Act, §§ 14 Fourth and 16 First, and it ordered Flota to allocate its space fairly among all qualified banana shippers. Consolo followed with a complaint before the Board asking for damages.
Flota rejected the demand and itself filed a petition before the Board for declaratory relief exonerating it from liability to Consolo.
Shortly thereafter Consolo demanded a 'fair and reasonable' amount of the carrying space pursuant to the previous Grace Line decisions of the Board and threatened to file a complaint if its demand were rejected. 4 One month after this ruling Flota rejected a bid by Consolo, a banana shipper competing with Panama Ecuador, for the entire shipping space and honored the option given Panama Ecuador by executing to it a three-year exclusive carrying contract. 3 In April 1957, the Board reiterated its view that Grace Line had violated the Shipping Act by signing exclusive carrying contracts and it ordered Grace Line to offer to all qualified shippers, upon a fair basis, shipping space on forward-booking contracts not to exceed two years in length.
This exclusive contract was executed after the Federal Maritime Board, in June 1953, had ruled that Flota's competitor, Grace Line, was a common carrier of bananas and had violated the Shipping Act, 1916, §§ 14 Fourth 1 and 16 First, 2 by refusing to allocate its banana shipping space equitable among all qualified shippers. In July 1955, it entered into an exclusive two-year carrying contract with Panama Ecuador, a banana shipper, and gave Penama Ecuador an option to renew the contract for an additional three years, subject to its meeting the rate offered by any other shipper. (Flota) is a common carrier engaged in carrying bananas from South America to the United States.
0 kommentar(er)
