STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NEAL OTT FARMS, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 97-5822A
) RO-BEE SONS, INC., and NEW ) YORK SURETY COMPANY, )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing in Fort Myers, Florida, on June 3, 1998.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Carolann A. Swanson
Roetzel & Andress
2080 McGregor Boulevard, Third Floor Fort Myers, Florida 33901
For Respondent: Robert E. Goldman, Attorney
1543 7th Street, Suite 202 Santa Monica, California 90401
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Respondent Ro-Bee Sons, Inc., owes Petitioner Neal Ott Farms, Inc., additional money for squash and zucchini grown by Neal Ott Farms, Inc., and delivered in March and April 1997 to Ro-Bee Sons, Inc.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By Complaint dated August 27, 1997, Petitioner Neal Ott Farms, Inc., alleged that it delivered squash and zucchini to Respondent Ro-Bee Sons, Inc., in March and the first half of April, 1997, and that Ro-Bee Sons, Inc., owes Neal Ott Farms, Inc., $36,361.85. In an answer, Respondent Ro-Bee Sons, Inc., denied the allegations.
At the hearing, Petitioner called three witnesses and offered into evidence 12 exhibits. Respondent called four witnesses and offered into evidence four exhibits. All exhibits were admitted.
The parties did not order a transcript.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner grows straightneck, yellow squash (squash) and green zucchini on its farm in Estero. The local growing season for these crops is September to May.
As is customary, Petitioner began planting these crops on September 1, 1996, and continued to plant in phases, so that Petitioner could harvest crops throughout the harvesting season. Zucchini takes 40-50 days from planting to harvesting, and squash takes as little as four weeks.
The planting, growing, and harvesting continued normally until January 18, 1997. On January 18 and 19, a freeze hit Southwest Florida. Petitioner and other growers in a wide area lost their crops and resumed planting on January 20, 1997. A large number of growers planted crops simultaneously and enjoyed
good growing conditions. The market responded with lower prices in March, recovering somewhat in April.
Until March 1, 1997, the parties enjoyed a satisfactory business relationship during the 1996-97 growing season. The dispute in this case involves almost two dozen shipments of squash and zucchini shipped by Petitioner to Respondent Ro-Bee Sons, Inc. (Respondent), from March 1, 1997, through April 14, 1997.
After Petitioner's repeated requests for sales returns, Respondent belatedly sent approximately six weeks' worth to Petitioner on April 15. This information revealed for the first time the discrepancy between what Petitioner believed it was due and what Respondent believed it owed for the period from March 1 through April 15. Upon receipt of this information, Petitioner ordered that a truck already en route to Respondent take the product to another destination.
As is typical in cases of this type, the parties did not memorialize the conditions of their agreement, and they now dispute the conditions of this agreement.
Respondent offers two pieces of paper as evidence of the arrangement between the parties. The credibility of both principals suffers in assessing the weight to be given this evidence.
First, Respondent's principal representative testified that, "at first contact with any grower," Respondent would have
sent a blank contract form, on Respondent's letterhead, to Petitioner. Respondent's principal representative supplied the form that he claims was used in this case. However, the only items typed in on the form, which is called a Grower and Sales Agent Agreement, are Petitioner's name and a commission amount of ten percent. The form is undated and unsigned by both parties, and Petitioner's witnesses denied receipt of the form.
Respondent never sent this unsigned, undated form to Petitioner, and Respondent's principal likely knows as much. A different employee handled this account for Respondent at the time of its inception. This salesman left Respondent in mid- to late-March, as marketing problems mounted, although the record is silent as to whether his departure was related to these problems. Respondent found itself shorthanded from the departure of this and other employees. No one ever bothered to send this form to Petitioner.
Second, Respondent offers a paper signed by Petitioner's principal and dated September 21, 1997. The credibility of Petitioner's principal suffered when, at first, he implausibly denied the existence of such a document. However, this signed document delivers less than appears at first blush. In its entirety, the document states: "We, Neal Ott Farms, Inc., realize that per our contract with Ro-Bee & Sons. That if we collect any money do to us. That Ro-Bee & Sons are entitled to their 10% commission." This document acknowledges only that
Petitioner owes Respondent its commission if Petitioner collects on any sales made by Respondent.
The evidence establishes the following conditions in the business arrangement between the parties. Petitioner obligated itself to harvest, pack, and ship to Respondent squash and zucchini. Petitioner also obligated itself to pay Respondent a commission of ten percent of the gross sales price on all sales made by Respondent, which was entitled to deduct its commission prior to the payment of the net proceeds to Petitioner.
Respondent obligated itself to use its best efforts to market the vegetables at the best available price, but did not obligate itself to pay Petitioner the difference between the best available sales price resulting from Respondent's best efforts and the prevailing market price. In this case, the market price is a frame of reference within which to consider whether, shipment-by-shipment, Respondent satisfied its obligation to use its best efforts to obtain the best available price for Petitioner's product.
The parties litigated their liability for other expenses: the cost of boxes supplied by Respondent and the incremental cost of shipping, inspection, and disposal of less- than-optimal or unusable product. These matters are outside of the jurisdiction of the administrative law judge for the reasons stated in the conclusions of law.
This case requires the determination of the rights and responsibilities of the parties. The reasonable expectations set forth below are part of the parties' agreement.
More specifically, this dispute requires the determination of the parties' rights and responsibilities for squash that were in less than beautiful condition and zucchini that were larger than represented. As the market deteriorated for sellers, these nonconforming products encountered greater customer resistance, and, at the time, large discrepancies emerged between the market price and actual price realized on sale.
Petitioner reasonably anticipated that Respondent would promptly advise Petitioner of marketing problems with the product. However, there are two important limitations on this obligation of Respondent.
First, marketing problems do not involve Petitioner's packing and shipping procedures. In other words, Respondent had no duty to advise Petitioner of problems of which Petitioner was clearly aware. These problems involve Petitioner's failure to wrap individually any squash except those in the top of each box, Petitioner's method of nonrefrigerated shipment, Petitioner's failure to hydrocool the product in the field after picking, and Petitioner's inclusion of larger, less marketable product in boxes containing smaller, more marketable product.
Second, Respondent had no duty to advise Petitioner of anticipated marketing problems in advance of shipment by Respondent to its customers. None of the product was so oversized or poor in condition that it was unreasonable for Respondent, without prior notice to Petitioner, to ship the product in the exercise of its obligation to use its best efforts to obtain the best available price.
An important issue in this case is the promptness with which Respondent informed Petitioner of customer rejections, which are not always immediately known to Respondent. Although the agreement allowed Respondent to sell at the best price that its best efforts could obtain, even if this was less than market price, it also required Respondent to notify Petitioner reasonably promptly of marketing problems that resulted in substantial deviations from market price. By doing so, Respondent would have given Petitioner the opportunity to remedy or try to remedy the marketing problems, such as by changing packing or shipping methods, hydrocooling the vegetables in the field, packing by size more carefully, or changing its dealer.
In the presence of such reasonably prompt notification, the agreement requires that Petitioner accept the sales price obtained by Respondent because Petitioner supplied nonconforming product, and Respondent gave Petitioner an opportunity to remedy the problems. In the absence of such reasonably prompt notification, the agreement requires that Respondent account for
the best available sales price for the product. This sales price may be greater than the sales price realized by Respondent, but will be less than market price due to the size and condition of the product.
A subsidiary effect of Respondent's failure to notify Petitioner promptly of marketing problems is to cast doubt upon whether Respondent used its best efforts in marketing the product. This factor also justifies imposing upon Respondent the liability of paying Petitioner more than Respondent actually realized for the sale of some product.
As to size, Petitioner has failed to prove that it sent zucchini that were the size represented by Petitioner on its records. Bigger zucchini obtain lower prices on the market than smaller specimens, due to retail customer resistance to the larger sizes. However, there was no problem with the size of the squash. Respondent's principal admitted that the sizing of the squash was "okay."
As to size, the record supports an adjustment based on the fact that the zucchini was actually one size larger than shown on the records. This adjustment is described in more detail below.
As to condition, the squash is far more delicate than the zucchini, and Respondent's packing and shipping of the squash raised marketing problems. Petitioner proved that its zucchini was in satisfactory condition, but the squash requires a five
percent reduction off market price to reflect ongoing quality problems. Of course, in situations in which the realized price is used, rather than an adjusted price, there is no five percent reduction.
As to notice, Petitioner has proved that Respondent never advised Petitioner of any marketing problems until April 15, at which time Petitioner promptly terminated the
relationship. One week from date of shipment from Petitioner is reasonable time for Respondent to learn and inform Petitioner of marketing problems.
Thus, Respondent is not responsible for any price discrepancies until after March 7. This means that, for product shipped by Petitioner from March 1 through March 7, inclusive, the size and condition are as stated by Respondent, notwithstanding any contrary findings in the preceding paragraphs.
For the shipments from March 1 through March 7, Respondent calculated that it owed $12,700.80, after reduction for Respondent's ten percent commission. This calculation is correct.
For the shipments after March 7, it is necessary to determine the sales price that would have resulted from the best efforts of Respondent to obtain the best available sales price for Petitioner's product, given its size and condition. The adjustments contained in the following paragraph address the size
problems suffered by the zucchini and the quality problems suffered by the squash. All prices, such as $2, are per box.
The adjustment for the post-March 7 squash shipments is to reduce the market price by $2 for fancies (which is a growing and marketing euphemism for smalls) and mediums. There is no adjustment for larges because Petitioner did not ship any large squash to Respondent. The purpose of this adjustment is to account for the actual market conditions in which Respondent would have exerted its best efforts to obtain the best available price, as distinguished from the top-end market prices demanded by Petitioner. This adjustment also accounts for the less-than- beautiful quality of Petitioner's squash during this period.
Next, the tentative price is then reduced by five percent to reflect more severe quality problems in the squash not already taken into consideration by the previous adjustment. The agreed-upon total price for each post-March 7 squash shipment is thus the greater of the price yielded by these adjustments or the price actually realized by Respondent.
The adjustment for the post-March 7 zucchini shipments is to raise the represented size by one size, so that fancies become mediums and mediums become larges. Larges are not raised to a higher category because there is no recognizable market for zucchini of this size, except possibly through sale at auction of individual specimens. The purpose of this adjustment is to
reflect Petitioner's consistent failure to size properly the zucchini during this period.
Next, the market price for this adjusted size is reduced by $2 for mediums (there can be no fancies after the first adjustment). Thus, a fancy becomes a medium, and its medium market price is reduced by $2. Because there is no market price for larges, the price for mediums that become larges is discussed in the next paragraph. The purpose of this adjustment is to account for the actual market conditions in which Respondent would have exerted its best efforts to obtain the best available price, as distinguished from the top-end market prices demanded by Petitioner. A minor purpose of this adjustment--much less important than was the case with the squash--is to account for the rare quality problems encountered in Petitioner's zucchini during this period, such as the problem conceded by Petitioner in its proposed recommended order concerning the March
10 shipment.
Although there is no market price for large zucchini in the Market News Service Daily News Reports, Petitioner's spreadsheet supplies estimated market prices for this size zucchini. There are only six dates on which Petitioner shipped what it represented were large zucchini: March 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
On all but March 5, Petitioner shipped at the same time what it represented to be medium zucchini, so as to permit a useful comparison. On March 1, Petitioner's market prices were $10 for
the more valued medium and $7 for the large. These respective prices were $8 and $6 on March 6, $8 and $4 on March 7, $8 and $6 on March 8, and $5 and $3 on March 10. Based on this information, this order calculates the market prices of large zucchini as the medium market price less $3.
As is the case with the squash, the agreed-upon total price for each post-March 7 zucchini shipment is thus the greater of the price yielded by these adjustments or the price actually realized by Respondent.
For March 8, 118 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $8 market less $2, or $6, for a total of $708. One hundred forty-seven mediums are priced as larges (i.e., medium less $3) at $5, for a total of $735. Fifty-eight larges sold at $2, for a total of $116. The total due for zucchini is $1559. For the squash, 127 fancies obtain $10 market less $2, or $8, for a total of $1016, and five mediums obtain $8 market less $2, or $6, for a total of $30. After the five percent reductions, these respective figures are $965.20 and $28.50, for a total of
$993.70. Thus, the total owed for March 8 is $2552.70, less the commission, for a net due of $2297.43.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $1635.30. Thus, Respondent owed an additional
$662.13 for March 8.
For March 10, 133 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $5 market, less $2, or $3, but they actually sold for $6, so
their total is $798. Two hundred sixty medium zucchini are priced as larges at $5 market, less $3, or $2, but they actually sold for $3.50, so their total is $910. Fifty-three large zucchini sold at $2, so their total is $106. The total due for zucchini is $1814. For the squash, 297 fancy squash obtain $8 market less $2, or $6, for a total of $1782, and 30 medium squash obtain $6 market, less $2, or $4, for a total of $120. After the five percent reductions, these respective figures are $1692.90 and $114.00, for a total of $1806.90. Thus, the total owed for March 10 is $3620.90, less the commission, for a net due of
$3258.81.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $2782.80. Thus, Respondent owed an additional
$476.01 for March 10.
For March 12, 143 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $6 market, less $2, or $4, for a total of $572. Two hundred forty-seven medium zucchini are priced as larges at $6 market, less $3, or $3, for a total of $741. The total for zucchini is
$1313. For squash, 268 fancies obtain $8 less $2, or $6, for a total of $1608, and 90 mediums obtain $6 less $2, or $4, for a total of $360. After the five percent reductions, these respective figures are $1527.60 and $342, for a total of
$1869.60. Thus, the total owed for March 12 is $3182.60, less the commission, for a net due of $2864.34.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $1845. Thus, Respondent owed an additional $1019.34 for March 12.
For March 15, 398 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $4 market, less $2, or $2, but they actually sold at $3.50, so their total is $1393. One hundred sixty-six medium zucchini are priced as larges at $4 market, less $3, or $1, but 79 sold at
$2.50 and 87 sold at $2, so their total is $371.50. The total for zucchini is $1764.50. For the squash, 145 fancy squash obtain $6 market, less $2, or $4, for a total of $580, and 202 medium squash obtain $4 market, less $2, or $2, which is the actual sales price, for a total of $404. There is no five percent reduction for the medium squash because they realized $2 each. After the five percent reduction for the fancy squash, the adjusted price is $551. The total for squash is $955. Thus, the total owed for March 15 is $2719.50, less the commission, for a net due of $2447.55.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $2343.15. Thus, Respondent owed an additional
$104.40 for March 15.
For March 17, 208 (not 198, as reported by Respondent) fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $3 market, less $2, or
$1, but they actually sold at $3.50, for a total of $728. Two hundred seventy-seven mediums are priced as larges at $3, less
$3, or 0, but they actually sold at $2, for a total of $554. The
total for zucchini is $1282. For the squash, Petitioner's spreadsheet contains no entries for market price. Using the prices from March 15, 187 fancy squash obtain $6 market, less $2, or $4, for a total of $748, and 87 mediums obtain $4 market, less
$2, or $2, for a total of $174. There is no five percent reduction for the medium squash because they realized $2 each. After the five percent reduction for the fancy squash, the resulting price is $710.60, for a total of $884.60. Thus, the total owed for March 17 is $2166.60, less the commission, for a net due of $1949.94.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $1783.80. Thus, Respondent owed an additional
$382.80 for March 17.
For March 19, 232 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $3 market, less $2, or $1, but they actually sold for $3.50, for a total of $812. One hundred fifty-three mediums are priced as larges at $3, less $3, or 0, but they actually sold for $2, for a total of $306. The total for zucchini is $1118. For the squash, 118 fancy squash obtain $5 market, less $2, or $3, which is the actual sales price of 12, for a total of $354. Eighty- eight medium squash obtain $3 market, less $2, or $1, but they actually sold at $2, for a total of $176. After the five percent reduction for the 106 fancy squash, their adjusted price is
$302.10, so the total for squash is $514.10. Thus, the total
owed for March 19 is $1632.10, less the commission, for a net due of $1468.89.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $1435.50. Thus, Respondent owed an additional
$33.39 for March 19.
For March 21, 152 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $4 market, less $2, or $2, but they actually sold at $5, so their total is $760. Two hundred twenty-three medium zucchini are priced as larges at $4 market, less $3, or $1, but they sold at $2.50, so their total is $557.50. The total for zucchini is
$1317.50. For the squash, 178 fancy squash obtain $6 market, less $2, or $4, which is the actual sales price, for a total of
$712. Sixty-nine medium squash obtain $4 market, less $2, or $2, but actually sold for $2.50, for a total of $172.50. There is no five percent reduction for the squash because they realized these prices. The total for squash is $884.50. Thus, the total owed for March 21 is $2202, less the commission, for a net due of
$1981.80, which is the amount that Respondent calculated that it owed.
For March 24, 154 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $4 market, less $2, or $2, but they actually sold at $4.50, so their total is $693. Three hundred seventy-four medium zucchini are priced as larges at $4 market, less $3, or $1, but they actually sold at $2.50, so their total is $935. The total for zucchini is $1628. For the squash, 129 fancy squash obtain $8
market, less $2, or $6, for a total of $774, and 116 medium squash obtain $6 market, less $2, or $4, for a total of $464. After the five percent reduction, the respective prices are
$735.30 and $383.80, so the total for squash is $1119.10. Thus, the total owed for March 24 is $2747.10, less the commission, for a net due of $2472.39.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $2469.15. Thus, Respondent owed an additional $3.24 for March 24.
For March 26, 305 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $4 market, less $2, or $2, but they actually sold at $5, so their total is $1525. Seventy-seven medium zucchini are priced as larges at $4 market, less $3, or $1, but they actually sold at
$2.50, so their total is $192.50. The total for zucchini is
$1717.50. For the squash, 85 fancy squash obtain $8 market, less
$2, or $6, for a total of $510, and 49 medium squash obtain $6 market, less $2, or $4, for a total of $196. After the five percent reduction, the respective prices are $484.50 and $186.20. The total for squash is $670.70. Thus, the total owed for
March 26 is $2388.20, less the commission, for a net due of
$2149.38.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $2098.80. Thus, Respondent owed an additional
$50.58 for March 26.
For March 28, 262 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $4 market, less $2, or $2, but they actually sold at $5, so their total is $1310. Two hundred eighty-two medium zucchini are priced as larges at $4 market, less $3, or $1, but they actually sold at $2.50, so their total is $705. The total for zucchini is
$2015. For the squash, 61 fancy squash obtain $10 market, less
$2, or $8, for a total of $488, and 29 medium squash obtain $8 market, less $2, or $6, for a total of $174. After the five percent reduction, the respective prices are $463.60 and $165.30, for a total of $628.90. Thus, the total owed for March 28 is
$2643.90, less the commission, for a net due of $2379.51.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $2302.20. Thus, Respondent owed an additional
$77.31 for March 28.
For March 31, 410 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $4 market, less $2, or $2, but 140 sold at $5 and 270 sold at
$4.50, so their total is $1915. Six hundred five medium zucchini are priced as larges at $4 market, less $3, or $1, but 208 sold at $2.50 and 397 sold at $2, so their total is $1314. The total owed for zucchini, which was the only product shipped on March 31, is $3229, less the commission, for a net due of $2906.10, which is the amount that Respondent calculated that it owed.
For April 2, 317 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $4 market, less $2, or $2, but they actually sold at $6, so their total is $1902. One hundred fifty-five medium zucchini are
priced as larges at $4 market, less $3, or $1, but they actually sold at $4, so their total is $620. The total owed for zucchini, which was the only product shipped on April 2, is $2540, less the commission, for a net due of $2269.80, which is the amount that Respondent calculated that it owed.
For April 4, 291 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $6 market, less $2, or $4, but they actually sold at $8, so their total is $2328. Two hundred seventeen medium zucchini are priced as larges at $6 market, less $3, or $3, but they actually sold at $5.50, so their total is $1193.50. The total owed for zucchini, which was the only product shipped on April 4, is
$3521.50, less the commission, for a net due of $3169.35, which is the amount that Respondent calculated that it owed.
For April 6, 393 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $8 market, less $2, or $6, but they actually sold at $9.50, so their total is $3733.50. Two hundred sixty-seven medium zucchini are priced as larges at $8 market, less $3, or $5, but they actually sold at $7, so their total is $1869. The total owed for zucchini, which was the only product shipped on April 6, is
$5602.50, less the commission, for a net due of $5042.25, which is the amount that Respondent calculated that it owed.
For April 8, 235 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $8 market, less $2, or $6, but they actually sold at $10, so their total is $2350. Two hundred ninety-nine medium zucchini are priced as larges at $8 market, less $3, or $5, but they
actually sold at $7, so their total is $2093. The total owed for zucchini, which was the only product shipped on April 8, is
$4443, less the commission, for a net due of $3998.70, which is the amount that Respondent calculated that it owed.
For April 10, 259 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $8 market, less $2, or $6, but they actually sold at $9.50, so their total is $2460.50. Eighty-seven medium zucchini are priced as larges at $8 market, less $3, or $5, but they actually sold at
$6, so their total is $522. The total owed for zucchini, which was the only product shipped on April 10, is $2982.50, less the commission, for a net due of $2684.25, which is the amount that Respondent calculated that it owed.
For April 14, 203 fancy zucchini are priced as mediums at $8 market, less $2, or $6, but 100 sold at $8 and 103 sold at
$6, so their total is $1418. Two hundred seventy-seven medium zucchini are priced as larges at $8 market, less $3, or $5, so their total is $1385. The total owed for zucchini, which was the only product shipped on April 14, is $2803, less the commission, for a net due of $2522.70.
After deducting the commission, Respondent calculated that it owed $2345.40. Thus, Respondent owed an additional
$177.30 for April 14.
The total of the additional amounts that Respondent owed is $2986.50. However, Respondent owes Petitioner more than
this amount because Respondent did not pay Petitioner the entire amount that Respondent determined that it owed Petitioner.
Respondent owes Petitioner, after taking its commissions, $58,563.99.
Respondent paid Petitioner for the shipments in question $49,590.05. This is the sum of check number 2621 dated March 14 for $5000, check number 2697 dated March 28 for $5000, check number 2727 dated April 1 for $7500, check number 2809 dated April 24 for $6000, check number 2853 dated May 5 for
$8189.70, check number 2879 dated May 16 for $11,406.35, and a wire transfer on April 17 for $6494.
Respondent is not entitled to a credit for check number 2503 dated February 21 for $8087.40 because this check was for product shipped prior to March 1. In addition to the date on this check, further proof of its proper application is that the checks dated March 14 and 28 and April 1 were called "advances," as further proof that Respondent had not yet calculated its debt for the shipments starting March 1 when it wrote the check dated February 21.
Respondent is also not entitled to a credit for boxes for the reasons stated in the conclusions of law.
Thus, Respondent paid $49,590.05 on a net debt of
$58,563.99 for vegetables and still owes $8973.94.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Sections 120.57(1) and 604.21, Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections are to Florida Statutes.)
Section 604.21 limits the issues in this case to a determination of the liability of a dealer and its surety for nonpayment for agricultural products. Thus, the liability between the dealer and grower for other items, such as shipping containers, is not addressed in this case.
Petitioner has proved that Respondent still owes it
$8973.94 for zucchini and squash shipped from March 1 through April 14, 1997.
It is
RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order directing Respondent Ro-Bee Sons, Inc., to pay Petitioner Neal Ott Farms, Inc., the sum of
$8973.94.
DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ROBERT E. MEALE
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 1998.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Carolann A. Swanson Roetzel & Andress
2080 McGregor Boulevard, Third Floor Fort Myers, Florida 33901
Robert E. Goldman, Attorney 1543 7th Street, Suite 202 Santa Monica, California 90401
New York Surety Company
80 Cutter Mill Road
Great Neck, New York 11021
Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Brenda Hyatt, Chief
Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
508 Mayo Building
407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order must be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 12, 1999 | Final Order rec`d |
| Dec. 22, 1998 | Objection by Ro-Bee Sons to Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Nov. 23, 1998 | Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Nov. 06, 1998 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 6/3/98. |
| Aug. 18, 1998 | Letter to REM from R. Goldman (RE: response to PRO) (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 18, 1998 | (R. Goldman) Proposed Recommended Order (for judge signature) (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 17, 1998 | Notice of Filing Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order; Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 10, 1998 | Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time in which to file Proposed Recommended Orders (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 30, 1998 | Transcript of Proceedings filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1998 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Apr. 21, 1998 | Order Granting Continuance and Second Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 6/3/98; 9:00am; Ft. Myers) |
| Apr. 20, 1998 | Joint Motion for Continuance of Hearing filed. |
| Apr. 17, 1998 | Joint Motion for Continuance of Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 23, 1998 | Notice of Serving Petitioner`s, Neal Ott Farms, Inc., First Set of Interrogatories on Respondent Ro-Bee Sons, Inc. filed. |
| Feb. 06, 1998 | Order Granting Continuance and Notice of Hearing sent out. (2/11/98 hearing cancelled & reset for 4/23/98; 9:00am; Ft. Myers) |
| Feb. 02, 1998 | Petitioner Neal Ott Farms, Inc.`s Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 29, 1998 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance of Hearing, and Change of Venue of Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1998 | Notice of Video Hearing sent out. (Video Final Hearing set for 2/11/98; 9:00am; Ft. Myers & Tallahassee) |
| Dec. 31, 1997 | Notice of Appearance as Counsel for Petitioner Neal Ott Farms, Inc. (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 31, 1997 | Petitioner Neal Ott Farms, Inc.`s Reply to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 26, 1997 | (Respondent) Unilateral Response by Ro-Bee Sons, Inc. to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 16, 1997 | Initial Order issued. |
| Dec. 09, 1997 | Agency referral letter; Complaint; (Respondent) Answer; Notice of Filing of A Complaint; Supportive Letters & Invoices filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 10, 1999 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 06, 1998 | Recommended Order | Dealer in agricultural products agreed to use best efforts to sell squash and zucchini at best available price but market price impossible due to size of zucchini and condition of squash. Set off for commissions, but not boxes. |
