(B) as used in this section, “Motor Carrier Transport Contract” means a contract, agreement or agreement comprising: (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, provision, clause, contract or agreement that are included in a transport contract for or concerning the road hauliers, the contract commitment , or against liability in the event of loss or damage resulting from negligence or negligence or omission of negligence or omission of the agents` or employees` undertakings, the employees, agents or independent contractors directly responsible for the undertaking of the contract are contrary to the public policy of that state and are unenforceable. (D) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, a “transportation contract for road transportation companies” does not include the single intermodal exchange and facility access agreement managed by the North American Intermodal Association, as this agreement may be amended by the Executive Committee for Intermodal Exchange. In a compensation clause, the compensated party (compensation), – in standard contractual language – undertakes to “compensate, retain and defend” against complaints and losses resulting from the acts or negligence of the compensated party. (C) Nothing in this section prejudges a provision, clause, agreement or agreement in which the operator releases or maintains the liability of the liability in the event of injury, to the extent that the damage is caused by the negligence of the driver, his representatives, his employees, his agents or his independent contractors, who are directly dependent on the company of the engine and who is responsible for the engine. In previous blogs, we have discussed what can happen if agreements that are not in competition, that do not exist or that violate public order become unenforceable – they become unworkable. “Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, a commitment or agreement related to the […] Construction . . . of a building . .
. purports to compensate for the undertaking … of liability for damages [ …] caused in the vicinity or the mere negligence of the promise … is contrary to public order and unenforceable.” The same applies to other common clauses in commercial contracts. Today, we are looking at the compensation clause that was the subject of a recent trial in the South Carolina Court of Appeals. The Court found that the clause in question was formulated in such a way as to violate the state`s public policy and, therefore, to be unenforceable. Here is the relevant part of the code that has been shortened for clarity: companies always find themselves in trouble when they try to get more than they earn fairly and legitimately. In this case, Horton wanted BFS to pay damages for Horton`s negligence, which is not fair and not legal. In the end, Horton received nothing.
The main reason the court ruled in BFS`s favour was that the contract`s compensation clause was drafted in such a way as to violate South Carolina`s public policy. The Court of Appeal held that under national law, Horton and BFS were entitled to agree that BFS Horton would compensate for the damage caused by the SFO. However, the court also found that Horton was not authorized to compensate Von BfS for the damages caused by Horton, as the clause was formulated.