STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

R. M. STEMBRIDGE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-1095A

) JACK'S FRUIT COMPANY, NOT INC. ) A LICENSED CITRUS FRUIT DEALER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Hearings were held in this case pursuant to notice on August 14, 1975 and October 23, 1975 in Bartow, Florida, by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

This case arose from the complaint of R. M. Stembridge to the Department of Agriculture against Jack's Fruit Company, a licensed citrus fruit dealer alleging that Jack's Fruit Company had violated Section 601.66, Florida Statutes, by failing to pay R. M. Stembridge $930 allegedly owed R. M. Stembridge by Jack's Fruit Company. This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Department of Agriculture for hearing.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Mr. R. M. Stembridge For Respondent: Mr. Jack Goldtrap

ISSUES

The primary issue in this hearing was the existence of a contract between

1. M. Stembridge and Jack's Fruit Company under which monies were owed Stembridge.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Prior to August 5, 1974, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who was in the grove caretaking business, called Mr. Jack Goldtrap by telephone relative to the sale of citrus fruit on properties managed by her for her mother-in-law and herself. Their discussion regarding the sale of the fruit and the terms was incorporated with the contract, Exhibit 1, which Mr. Goldtrap sent to Mrs. Stembridge together with a check for $7500. Mrs. Stembridge executed the contract, accepted the check, and returned the executed contract to Mr. Goldtrap.

      
      

   2. This contract recites that Mr. Goldtrap had purchased " all fruit on the following groves at market price at time of picking less 50 cents plus picking cost". Thereafter the contract lists the groves subject to the contract: "Home Bloc, Poor Prospect and R. F. Stembridge grove."

   3. The testimony was uncontroverted that the fruit which is the subject of the instant controversy was located within the groves enumerated in the contract, however, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge stated that it had not been her intent to sell the fruit in controversy, but she was uncertain whether this was communicated to Mr. Goldtrap prior to the execution of the contract. Mr. Goldtrap testified that he felt he had purchased all the fruit on the groves as stated in the contract. The Hearing Officer finds that the contract, Exhibit 1, takes precedent over any prior verbal agreement between the parties to the contract and that Mr. Goldtrap purchased all fruit in the grove identified therein.

      
      

   4. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge and R. M. Stembridge testified that subsequent to the written contract with Mr. Goldtrap that R. M. Stembridge entered into an oral agreement to purchase the fruit in controversy from Mrs. Stembridge (the mother of R. M. Stembridge and mother-in-law of Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who is the sister-in-law of R. M. Stembridge). R. M. Stembridge desired the fruit for sale in his roadside stand at his service station, and planned to pick the fruit in controversy himself on a piecemeal basis over several months. Pursuant to her mother-in-law's Instructions, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge contacted T. G. Mixon, a field superintendent with 31 years experience to estimate the value of the fruit in controversy. T. G. Mixon looked at the trees and crop in controversy late in 1974 and estimated in value to R. M. Stembridge as $3/box; however, he qualified his estimate stating that this was only a valid estimate of its value to R. M. Stembridge based on his particular intended use and that its market value was no where near that figure. R. M. Stembridge paid the agreed upon price of $900 to his mother-in-law for the fruit in controversy.

      
      

   5. Prior to picking the fruit he had purchased, Mr. Goldtrap visited the groves and was shown the groves, their boundaries, and the fruit in controversy by Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman. This fruit was red grapefruit which is generally unsuitable for juice production. Such fruit cannot be economically picked for juice because there is no market for the unacceptable fruit. Mr. Goldtrap was advised by Mrs. Stembridge's foreman that Mr. Stembridge was interested in the fruit. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge testified that she thought that her foreman had told an unknown person that the red grapefruit had been promised to her brother-in-law. Mr. Goldtrap decided not to pick the red grapefruit, but to leave the fruit on the trees, and instructed his picking crew supervisors to check with R. M. Stembridge to determine which of the fruit be desired.

      
      

   6. In addition to the red grapefruit in controversy, R. M. Stembridge also had agreed to purchase white grapefruit from approximately 10 trees adjoining his service station, a fact unknown to Mr. Goldtrap or his supervisors. When the supervisors called on Mr. Stembridge to find out which trees should be spared, Stembridge thinking that they were referring to the white grapefruit trees near his station and that they had been shown the red grapefruit trees by his sister-in-law's foreman told them to begin their picking and when they got down to the station he would show them the trees to spare. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman did not instruct the picking supervisors and the picking crew picked the red grapefruit in controversy. When Mr. Stembridge became aware of the reds having been picked, he contacted Mr. Goldtrap. Mr. Stembridge was very irate and Mr. Goldtrap was very apologetic not fully realizing how the fruit had been picked when it had been his intent to spare the fruit. At this point, Stembridge demanded $3/box for the fruit, and Mr. Goldtrap stated that was a high price. Thereafter, in either this conversation or a subsequent one, Stembridge stated perhaps he knew a man who would buy them, however, when

      contacted this individual was not interested. When Goldtrap was advised of this, Goldtrap said he would send another truck and collect the red grapefruit.

      
      

   7. The issue presented in this controversy, therefore, becomes a question of whether there was a transaction between Mr. Goldtrap and Mr. R. M. Stembridge. It is clear from the contract, Exhibit 1, that Mr. Goldtrap owned the fruit in question at the time Mr. Stembridge "purchased" the fruit from his mother. Goldtrap intended to leave the fruit because of it low value and instructed his supervisors to contact Stembridge so that Stembridge could identify the trees in which be was interested. However, these trees were not identified by Stembridge because Stembridge thinking the supervisors were referring to the white grapefruit trees, did not indicate the trees he desired. Therefore, Goldtrap's intent to relinquish his right to the fruit was never effectively communicated to Mrs. Barbara Stembridge or to R. M. Stembridge.

      
      

   8. Mr. Stembridge's demand for $3/box for the grapefruit was in essence a demand for damages and not an offer for sale. Even if it were viewed as an offer (overlooking Stembridge's lack of ownership), there is no evidence that Goldtrap accepted the offer. His response was to advise Stembridge that he would send another truck to pick up the fruit. This action was consistent with his prior contract with Barbara Stembridge to purchase all the fruit in the groves and his legal obligation. See Section 601.64(3), Florida Statutes.

      
      

   9. The testimony was clear that Mr. Goldtrap had not paid out the moneys received from the sale of the red grapefruit because of the questions raised by

R. M. Stembridge. However, Barbara Stembridge has filed no complaint in this matter, and based upon the foregoing findings that there is no transaction or contract between R. M. Stembridge and Goldtrap, R. M. Stembridge is not entitled to an accounting or to payment for the fruit in controversy.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Wherefore the Hearing Officer recommends that the charges be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1975.

STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. R. M. Stembridge Route 1, Box 258

Lake Wales, Florida 33855

Mr. B. R. Goldtrap Jack's Fruit Company Route 2, Box 168

Bowling Green, Florida 33834

Robert R. Crittenden, Counsel Division of Fruit and Vegetable

Inspection

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Post Office Box 1072

Winter Haven, Florida 33880

Docket for Case No: 75-001095

Orders for Case No: 75-001095