pay Hawkspere the freight that is due under the bills of lading. In this respect, it is worth noting that no party to this dispute has done other than what it was expected to do: Hawkspere carried the goods, and Intamex and Amal-eo tendered payment of freight. The trouble arises from the fact that the Shippers sent their payments not to Hawkspere directly, but rather by way of the consolidator, ICTS, who apparently then failed to forward the money on to its intended destination. Thus, the question: should Inta-mex and Amaleo have to pay twice, or should Hawkspere instead receive no payment at all? There exists a split among the circuits on the question of which party, the shipper or the carrier, bears the risk that t 46 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Taking this approach, o d 117, 121 (8th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Mediterranean Shipping Co. v. Elof Hansson,
holding that bill of lading issued as to two containers was binding as to third container which was stolen and as to which no bill of lading issued provided that the bill of lading in evidence was the standard form bill of lading that carrier always used 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 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 bill of lading not charterparty governed contract dispute between carrier and shipper 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