if the carrier has released the shipper from liability under the bills of lading is the shipper discharged from his duty to pay the carrier by remitting payment to the consolidator; otherwise, the shipper, by choosing not to pay the carrier directly, assumes the risk that the consolidator might fail to forward the freight payment on to the carrier. Under an alternative, “equitable estop-pel” view, when a shipper pays freight to a consolidator and the consolidator subsequently fails to forward the payment on to the carrier, the shipper does not remain hable to the carrier, so long as the circumstances indicate that the carrier led the shipper to believe that payment to the cargo consolidator would discharge the debt. See Olson Distrib. Sys. v. Glaswrit Am., 850 F.2d 295 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Inman Freight Sys., Inc. v. Olin Corp., 807
holding that carrier may be estopped from collecting freight charges from shipper who paid freight to consolidator in reliance on carriers representation that such payment would discharge shippers bill of lading obligation holding that bill of lading not charterparty governed contract dispute between carrier and shipper holding doctrine of equitable estoppel barred carriers claim against shipper for payment of freight bills after carriers documents and dilatory conduct led shipper to believe that carrier was receiving freight payments from cargo consolidator holding that shipper negligence does not absolve a carrier of liability if damage would not have occurred but for the concurrent fault of the carrier holding that carrier is estopped from collecting freight charges from shipper when shipper had paid consolidator in reliance on carriers misrepresentation that it had already received its payment from consolidator and shipper would thus otherwise be unjustifiably liable for double payment