The Issue Whether the Respondent owes the Petitioner money for watermelons allegedly purchased from Petitioner. The factual and legal issue is whether Respondent purchased the melons or acted as a broker/agent for Petitioner and attempted to sell the melons for Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact During the 1996 season, the Petitioner, who is a labor contractor and farmer, grew watermelons. The Respondent, who is a building contractor and watermelon broker, was “handling” watermelons in the area around Archer, Florida. The Respondent was represented by Tony Tharp, brother of the Respondent, who spoke with the Petitioner. As a result of an oral agreement reached between Tony Tharp and Petitioner, the watermelons which Petitioner had grown were picked by persons working for Tharp on June 20, 21, and 23, 1996. There was no written contract or memorandum regarding the agreement of the parties. Petitioner stated that he wanted to get his melons picked, but that he was busy with his crew and could not pick them, and the melons needed to be picked because they were past their prime. Tony Tharp agreed to “move them” for Petitioner. One truck load was picked and loaded on June 20; three truck loads were picked and loaded on June 21, and two truck loads were picked and loaded on June 23. Tharp paid Petitioner $700 which was termed an “advance” by Respondent, and considered a “down payment” by Petitioner, who understood he would receive the remainder of the money due him in approximately seven days. The trucking was arranged for by Tharp, and the Respondent bore the cost of picking and freight initially, and the merchants who received the melons paid the shipping for the melons they accepted. The melons were shipped to markets in several states. The first load was refused by the intended recipient, and after several attempts to dispose of the melons, they were sold at salvage for $180. The second load was also refused, and could not be salvaged. Pictures of this load were introduced where it was unloaded in Marianna, Florida. The remaining loads of watermelons were accepted, and $4,876.43 received for them. The costs of loading the two loads which were refused was $1,149.75. The freight costs on these two loads was $3,901.83. The Petitioner testified that the Tharp agreed to purchase the melons in the field, and, therefore, he is entitled to the purchase price for the melons. Dennis Tharp stated he was a broker, and that the Petitioner assumed the risk if the melons could not be sold. Dennis Tharp stated that he had lost the costs of picking, $1,149.75, and transporting, $3,901.83, the two loads of melons offset by the salvage value of $180.00, resulted in a total loss of $4,871.58. When the costs of picking the last four loads, $1,591.20, and the $700.00 advance on the sale is deducted from the proceeds of the sale of the last four loads, $4,876.43, the net profit on the last four loads is $2,585.23. When the profits from the sale of the last four loads is deducted from the loses on the first two loads, there is a net loss of $2,286.35. This net loss was absorbed by the Respondent. Several of the people who were in the field testified regarding the state of the melons being picked. The melons were past their prime for picking. On the last load, the pickers refused to pick any more melons without additional compensation because so many melons were being rejected at the truck. Petitioner, who was present, concurred in this extraordinary expense. Generally, melons are not sold because the market drops and the merchants refuse melons being shipped to them. In this case, the first melons were rejected, and the last loads were accepted. The quality of a watermelon cannot be determined without cutting it open which destroys its merchantability. Watermelon graders attempt to judge the quality of melons from the external characteristics; however, purchasers cut open samples upon receipt to judge their quality. The Respondent notified the Petitioner by letter dated July 11, 1996 that the first two loads had been rejected; that he had salvaged those he could; and that the costs related to these two loads exceeded the profits due Petitioner on the last four loads.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent owes no further money to the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Alphonso Hunt 226 Fawn Drive Archer, Florida 32618 Dennis Tharp 4516 Decatur Street Marianna, Florida 32446 Auto Owners Insurance Company Legal Department Post Office Box 30660 Lansing, MI 48909-8160 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issues are as follows: Is the Respondent liable to the Petitioner for $140.00 for 3,500 pounds of unacceptable potatoes on Load number 15? Is the Respondent liable to the Petitioner for $1,792.00 for Load number 16? Does the contractual agreement provide for FOB payment or payment based upon delivered weight? Can the Respondent "back charge" the Petitioner for $964.06 freight charges, $60.00 for dumping charges, and $33.40 for U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection costs?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lee A. Maltby and Sons, Inc., doing business as Poa-Boy Farms, is a producer of agricultural products in Florida. The Respondent, Kenneth Rose Company, Inc., is a licensed dealer in agricultural products, pursuant to Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. The Respondent was bonded, pursuant to Chapter 604, Florida Statutes, as such a Florida dealer during the period of time between January 24, 1978 and May 23, 1978. On or about January 24, 1978, the Petitioner, as seller, and the Respondent, as buyer, entered into an executory contract for the Petitioner to deliver "10,000 CWT of chipping potatoes, 85 percent or better US. number 1," at $4.00 FOB. As to terms, the contract designated "usual." As to special terms, the contract stated "Potatoes will be paid on the basis of delivered weight as evidenced by a certified weight ticket prepared at the time and place of delivery." Shipment was "May, 1978 (Last week of April if possible)." On or about the same day, the Respondent entered into an executory contract with Cloud Produce, Inc. for the same shipment, excluding the "special terms." Undisputed testimony was that the price was at a rate of $.10 CWTFOB. Cloud Produce, Inc. was a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida as a dealer in agricultural products under Chapter 604, Florida Statutes. Cloud Produce, Inc. agreed to deliver the chipping potatoes to Frito- Lay, Inc., a corporation with a potato chip manufacturing plant in Louisville, Kentucky. The Respondent also contracted with Montgomery and Rose, Inc., a Florida corporation authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Florida as a truck broker, to transport the potatoes to Louisville, Kentucky. The broker contracted with an independent trucking firm known as "R & L" to transport and deliver the potatoes to Frito-Lay in Louisville, Kentucky. The potatoes designated as Load number 15 were delivered to Frito-Lay in Louisville, Kentucky, on May 18, 1978. There was no report to Petitioner that there was a problem with said load, and there was no USDA inspection made. Evidence submitted showed that 3,500 of the 43,620 pounds of potatoes contracted to be delivered were dumped. The potatoes designated as Load number 16 were loaded on an R & L truck late Friday, May 19, 1978. The R & L truck was weighed in Hastings, Florida, on May 19, 1978, passed a Florida inspection station on May 20, 1978, and arrived at the Frito-Lay plant in Louisville, Kentucky, at approximately 7:00 a.m. on May 23, 1978. The load of potatoes was rejected by Frito-Lay "due to wet breakdown." The report of Frito-Lay stated that the potatoes were in a very poor condition with rot from 30 to 80 percent. Frito-Lay ordered the R & L trucking company to remove the load from the Frito-Lay property due to its offensive odor. The Petitioner and the Respondent discussed the problem on May 23, 1978. The Petitioner requested that the Respondent re-route the potatoes to Muncie, Indiana. The Respondent was not able to get this instruction through to the trucking company before the load was dumped, and within hours, it informed the Petitioner that the potatoes were no good, that the expense was prohibitive, and that the potatoes had already been dumped. Part of the problem was the demand by Frito-Lay that the load be removed quickly because of the odor and leakage at the plant in Louisville, Kentucky, which adjoined a baseball field. The USDA Inspection Office was closed when called on May 23, 1978, but it inspected the load on May 24, 1978 and reported "Condition: Soft rot 90 percent, slimy soft rot, mostly in advanced, some in early stages. Remainder stock: Firm." The following transpired: The United States Department of Agriculture charged an inspection fee of $33.40 for its inspection of the potatoes on May 24, 1978. The USDA billed Frito-Lay, Frito-Lay billed Cloud Produce, Inc., and Cloud Produce, Inc. billed the Respondent for the inspection fee. R & L trucking company paid $60.00 for unloading the potatoes, Montgomery and Rose, Inc. paid R & L $60.00 for such unloading, plus $964.06 for hauling the potatoes to Louisville, Kentucky, and the Respondent paid this amount to Montgomery and Rose, Inc. The Respondent then "back charged" the Petitioner for the following: $140.00 for the load designated number 15; $1,792.00 for the value of the potatoes on Load number 16; $964.06 for freight charges; $60.00 dumping charges; and $33.40 inspection. These charges totaled $2,989.46, and this amount of money was retained by the Respondent as a set-off from the entire contract between the parties, which included Loan number 22, with which there was no problem. By letter to the Respondent dated July 25, 1978, the Petitioner demanded the money that is the subject of this hearing. The Petitioner stated that he did not believe that Load number 16 was his produce inasmuch as he had had no other complaints as to his produce from other receivers before or after said load. No evidence was introduced to substantiate the position of the Petitioner, and substantial evidence was introduced that Load number 16 was, in fact, the load that was ultimately dumped. The Petitioner presented a witness who testified that Montgomery and Rose, Inc. had salvaged a portion of Load number 16 after it was dumped. The Petitioner felt that it was unfair that one firm had made a profit from the Petitioner's loss. Montgomery and Rose, Inc. was not joined as a party. The Respondent presented undisputed testimony that it is customary to "charge back" a broker and a producer where the produce does not meet specifications. There was no evidence presented that the Petitioner was not familiar with the custom of the trade or the laws and regulations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, or that the Petitioner had reason to believe that it would not be liable for freight and brokerage charges if the potatoes were not sold. The contract between the parties merely stated that terms were "usual." The usual charges on such a transaction include USDA inspection fees, if needed, and freight and brokerages charges.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, uphold the claim of the Petitioner against Respondent in the amount of $140.00 deducted for the price of potatoes delivered designated as Load number 15. It is further RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered discharging the Respondent and its surety from any further liability. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald E. Clark, Esquire P.O. Drawer V Palatka, FL 32077 Alan B. Fields, Jr., Esquire P.O. Drawer F Palatka, FL 32077 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether Respondent owes Petitioner payment for approximately 728 crates of green cabbages. This requires a determination of whether Respondent acted properly in consigning the load to Tampa Bay Produce rather than returning the cabbages to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a grower doing business at his farm at Route 1, Box 1 in Hastings, St. Johns County, Florida. Respondent, Battaglia Produce, Inc., is a produce broker with an office in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Its President, Tony Battaglia, has been a produce broker for thirty-five years. Respondent, South Carolina Insurance Company, is the bonding agent for Battaglia pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. On May 19, 1988, Burrell sold a load of 791 crates of cabbages to Battaglia for and on the account of Publix Supermarkets, Inc. It is uncontroverted that at the time the cabbages left the field they were of good quality. The load was rejected by Publix in Lakeland on May 20, 1988. A sample of 30 crates out of the load revealed 27 crates were under the industry standard weight of fifty pounds. Battaglia learned that freight for the load back to Hastings would be expensive, so he consigned the load to Tampa Bay Produce, Inc., in Tampa, Florida for the purpose of sale. The subsequent consignment to Tampa Bay Produce was without the prior consent of Burrell. Battaglia has had an ongoing good business relationship with Burrell. Burrell's loads have been rejected at times in the past and Battaglia has never had problems obtaining Burrell's prior permission for disposing of the loads. Battaglia handles a total of approximately 1000 loads of cabbage a season and approximately 15% get rejected. He typically tries to resell the load to get the best advantage for the grower. Tampa Bay had some delay in selling the load. Some cabbages spoiled, and on May 31, 1988, 420 crates were dumped. The remainder sold for $606.00. Tampa Bay Produce deducted its 15% handling charge and paid Battaglia $515.00 for the load. In his accounting to Charles Burrell dated June 22, 1988, Battaglia deducted freight from Hastings to Lakeland and from Lakeland to Tampa and a pre- cooling charge in Tampa. He showed a net loss of $153.15 for the load. Battaglia did not claim a brokerage fee. Battaglia deducted the $153.15 from other funds it owed Burrell for other cabbage loads and paid Burrell the balance appearing on an accounting of this and eight other loads of cabbage, dated June 23, 1988. At the hearing the Burrells amended their request for payment to add the $153.15 deducted for the load. Burrell computed an average underweight based on the 30-crate sample from Publix and adjusted his invoice to Battaglia to reflect an 8% reduction. The invoice is dated June 27, 1988. Burrell claims that the 791 crates were sold for $4.60 per crate, for a total of $3,638.60. The 30 crates weighed an average of 46.14 pounds or eight percent less than the 50-lb. industry standard. An eight percent adjustment in the cost yields a total of $3,347.51. Burrell does not contest the underweight findings by Publix. He insists that he should have been informed immediately and given a change to bring the shipment back, repack the cabbages and sell them again. Instead, someone from Battaglia called Barbara Burrell on May 21st to tell her the load was turned down by Publix and was shipped to Tampa. She called Battaglla several times to get details on the short weight so that she could adjust their bill, but she was unable to get any information until the latter part of June, and by then Battaglia's position was that the load was a net loss. She obtained the weight information eventually from Publix. Battaglia claims that he acted professionally in handling the load and that he owes no additional funds to Burrell.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered requiring that Respondent pay to Petitioner the sum of $3500.66 and informing Respondent that failure to make such payment within fifteen (15) days will result in recovery from its surety, as provided in Subsection 604.21(8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles R. Burrell Charles R. Burrell Farms Route 1, Box 1 Hastings, Florida 32045 Ralph V. Hadley, III, Esquire Hadley and Asma Post Office Box 1340 Winter Garden, Florida 32787 South Carolina Insurance Company Post Office Box 1 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Ben H. Pridgeon, Jr., Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 418 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral testimony and the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner, L. L. Hiers was a "producer" of agricultural products in the state of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. (Nichols) was a licensed "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, issued license number 1547 by the Department, and bonded by U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Fidelity) for the sum of $50,000.00 bond number 790103-10-115-88-1, with an effective date of March 22, 2988 and a termination date of March 22, 1989. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Nichols was authorized to do business in the state of Florida. The Complaint was timely filed by Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes. Prior to Petitioner selling or delivering any watermelons (melons) to Nichols, Petitioner and Nichols agreed verbally that: (a) Petitioner would sell Nichols melons on a per pound basis at a price to be quoted by Nichols on the day of shipment, (b) Petitioner would harvest and load the melons on trucks furnished by Nichols (c) a weight ticket with the weight of the truck before and after loading would be furnished to Petitioner; (d) Nichols or its agent in the field would have the authority to reject melons at the place of shipment (loading) which did not meet the quality or grade contracted for by Nichols; (e) the melons were to be of U.S. No. 1 grade and; (f) settlement was to be made within a reasonable time after shipment. Although Nichols assisted Petitioner in obtaining the crew to harvest and load the melons, Petitioner had authority over the crew and was responsible for paying the crew. On a daily basis, Petitioner would contact Nichols and obtain the price being paid for melons that day. The price was marked in the field book with the net weight of each load. Nichols contends that the price quoted each day was the general price melons were bringing on the market that day, but the price to be paid Petitioner was the price Nichols received for the melons at their destination minus a 1 cent per pound commission for Nichols, taking into consideration freight, if any. Nichols was not acting at Petitioner's agent in the sale of the melons for the account of the petitioner on a net return basis nor was Nichols acting as a negotiating broker between the Petitioner and the buyer. Nichols did not make the type of accounting to Petitioner as required by Section 604.22, Florida Statutes, had Nichols been Petitioner's agent. The prices quoted by Nichols to Petitioner each day was the agreed upon price to be paid for melons shipped that day subject to any adjustment for failure of the melons to meet the quality or grade contracted for by Nichols. On June 10, 1988, Petitioner contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 6 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of each truckload of melons shipped that day. Petitioner shipped 4 loads of melons on June 10, 1988 but only 3 loads are in dispute, as follows: (a) load no. 10891 weighing 45,830 lbs. for which Nichols paid 3 cents per pound; (b) load no. 10892 weighing 43,950 lbs. for which Nichols paid 5 cents per pound and; (c) load 10893 weighing 47,190 lbs. for which Nichols paid 5 cents per pound. On June 22, 1988, Petitioner contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid ford melons shipped that day was 5.25 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight the loads shipped that day. Only load no. 10174 weighing 44,550 lbs. for which Nichols paid 3 cents per pound is in dispute. On June 23, 1988, Petitioner contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 5.5 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of the loads shipped that day. Two loads were shipped, but only load no. 11227 weighing 48,490 pounds for which Nichols paid 5 cents per lbs. is in dispute. The differences in the price paid for each load and the agreed upon price are as follows: (a) load no. 10891-$1324.90; (b) load no. 10892-$479.50; (c) load no. 10893-$471.90; (d) load no. 11174-$891.00 and; (c) load no. 11227- $242.45. The total amount in dispute is $3,419.75. Nichols contends that load no. 10891 was rejected because it failed to pass government inspection due to quality, and that the quality of load nos. 10982, 10893, 1174 and 1122 was poor, resulting in a lower price than the price agreed upon. There was insufficient evidence to support this contention. Nichols has refused to pay Petitioner the difference between the agreed upon price for load nos. 10891, 10892, 10893, 11174 and 11227 and the price paid by Nichols as indicated on the settlement sheet. The difference is $3,419.75, and is owed to Petitioner by Nichols.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. be ordered to pay to Petitioner, L. L. Hiers the sum of $3,419.75. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. fails to timely pay Petitioner, L. L. Hiers as ordered, then Respondent, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. be ordered to pay the Department as required by section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl Hiers, Qualified Representative Route 5, Box 339 Dunnellon, Florida 32630 Steve Nichols, Vice President Jay Nichols, Inc. Qualified Representative Post Office Box 1705 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent owes Petitioner money for cucumbers that Petitioner delivered to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner farms vegetables. He has previously grown squash and strawberries in Florida and sugar cane, beans, bananas, yucca, and rice in his native Cuba. Prior to the crop in question in this case, he had not previously grown cucumbers. Respondent is a licensed agricultural commodities handler. Its policy is to use best efforts in the sale of farmers' produce, but not to guarantee any particular results. About one week before the first delivery, Petitioner and Josephine Garcia drove by Respondent's business offices and decided that they should try to sell Respondent some of the cucumbers that Petitioner had been growing. Ms. Garcia, representing Petitioner, visited Respondent's offices and spoke with Don Hinton, the president and owner of Respondent. She asked Mr. Hinton if Respondent would like to buy Petitioner's cucumbers. Mr. Hinton replied that Respondent did not buy vegetables, but would sell what he could for a ten percent commission. Mr. Hinton was concerned about the quality of the cucumbers because the weather had been hot and it was late in the season for pickles. He warned Ms. Garcia that the quality had to be good and Petitioner had to grade the cucumbers properly as to size. On June 7, 1999, Petitioner delivered 46 boxes of cucumbers to Respondent. The next day, Petitioner delivered 61 boxes of cucumbers to Respondent. On June 10, Petitioner delivered a final 18 boxes of cucumbers to Respondent. There was little, if any, communication between Petitioner, who delivered the cucumbers, and the employee of Respondent, who accepted the delivery. Petitioner speaks only a little English, and Respondent's employee spoke no Spanish. Mr. Hinton examined the cucumbers after they were delivered. He found that the cucumbers were misgraded and bore an undesirable light green color. In general, they were showing the effects of heat and were not of good quality. Mr. Hinton thus combined the first two shipments into a single shipment and tried to sell the cucumbers to a buyer in New York. The New York buyer generally rejected the substandard cucumbers. Respondent was able to obtain only $237 for the 107 boxes sent to New York. The shipping bill was $278.20. Respondent calculated its commission on the gross sales price less freight. After finding the third delivery to be of the same quality as the first two, Mr. Hinton decided to combine them with a shipment under preparation at his brother's nearby farm. Mr. Hinton received $43 for these 18 boxes, and his brother's farm paid the freight. Mr. Hinton would have contacted Petitioner, but he had no way of doing so. Petitioner did not provide him with an address or telephone number. Petitioner instead sent a representative to stop by Respondent's office to obtain payment. In this way, Petitioner eventually discovered that his cucumbers had grossed only $280. To resolve the dispute, Respondent offered Petitioner $250, which Petitioner declined. However, at the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Hinton renewed the offer, and Petitioner accepted the offer. The only conditions attached to the offer and acceptance were that Petitioner was not waiving or releasing its claim to additional amounts and, if the order required Respondent to pay an additional amount, Respondent would receive a credit in the amount of this payment.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner the sum of $252; provided, however, Respondent shall be credited with the prior payment of $250. (This assumes that Petitioner has not again declined to accept or declined to cash the $250 check. If so, then the total payment should be $252.) DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1999, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymundo Garcia Josephine Garcia Qualified Representatives 1101 Wheeler Road Seffner, Florida 33584 Donald Hinton, President Horizon Produce Sales Post Office Box 70 Sydney, Florida 33587 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Gulf Insurance Company Legal Department Post Office Box 1771 Dallas, Texas 75221-1771
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent S & G Sales, Inc., owes money to Petitioner in connection with the purchase of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner produces agricultural products in Naples, Florida. Petitioner and Respondent S & G Sales, Inc. (Respondent) entered into an agreement in which Respondent would market Petitioner's pickles for the best available price. However, the agreement did not require Respondent to sell the pickles only for market price. The agreement required only that Respondent use its best efforts in marketing the pickles. In April and May 1998, Petitioner delivered to Respondent numerous shipments of pickles pursuant to the parties' agreement. Quality and sizing problems in the pickles prevented Respondent from being able to obtain market price. Pickles are perishable. They can go from acceptable quality to rotten in as little as two days. Respondent's representative weekly informed Petitioner's representative of the below-market prices that he was obtaining for the pickles. The record is somewhat confusing because Petitioner seeks additional payment for some, but not all, shipments of pickles, and Respondent made periodic advances for all the pickle shipments plus shipments of squash also. However, the evidence is clear that Respondent was required to get only the best available price and, due to quality and size problems did so. The evidence is also clear that Respondent paid at least as much as it owed Petitioner for the pickle shipments covered in the present claim.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 1999, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph Monahan New York Surety Company 123 William Street New York, New York 10038-3804 Juan Tello Qualified Representative Tello Farms, Inc. Post Office Box 8154 Naples, Florida 34101-8154 Carolann A. Swanson Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Thomas J. Chastain, is an agricultural producer and packer in Arcadia, Florida. The Respondent, C. J. Prettyman, Jr., Inc., is a agricultural broker doing business in Exmore, Virginia. Pursuant to an oral agreement, the Respondent has acted as a broker for agricultural products shipped to him by the Petitioner. (Testimony of C. J. Prettyman, Jr.). The complaint filed against the Respondent alleged a failure to properly package and account for five shipments of cucumbers and/or peppers shipped to the Respondent between November 7, 1978 and December 15, 1978. The first disputed shipment occurred November 7, 1978, and involved the sale of 750 cartons of cucumbers in the amount of $1,250.00 on invoice number 2775. (Respondent Exhibit 1A). These cucumbers were subsequently sold to Whamco, Inc., and shipped to Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Respondent Exhibit 1B). On November 11, 1978, the cucumbers were inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture in Minneapolis and found to require repacking due to decay which caused a $560.55 deduction from the amount paid Respondent by Whamco and a corresponding deduction in the amount due the Petitioner. (Respondent Exhibit 1C). The amount due the Petitioner from the sale of the cucumbers on invoice number 2775 is $689.45. On November 15, 1978, 205 assorted cucumbers were sold by the Petitioner to Wick and Brothers, Inc., a wholesale fruit and produce merchant. (Respondent Exhibit 4). Included in the shipment of cucumbers to Wick were cucumbers belonging to other growers. Wick paid the Petitioner for 300 boxes of cucumbers on November 30, 1978. (Respondent Exhibit 3). The Petitioner, therefore, received payment for 95 boxes of cucumbers owned by another grower for whom the Respondent acted as broker. In order to recoup the monies due the other grower, the Respondent deducted $308.75 from the amount due the Petitioner. (Testimony of Respondent). Similarly, Wick purchased 450 boxes of "super cukes" from Petitioner on November 20, 1978. (Respondent Exhibit 6). Wick, however, paid the Petitioner for 700 boxes of cucumbers on December 7, 1978. (Respondent Exhibit 5). Petitioner was thus paid for 250 boxes of cucumbers which were the property of Respondent or another grower. Again to recoup the monies due another grower, the Respondent deducted $562.50 from the amount due the Petitioner. (Testimony of Respondent). Respondent invoiced 600 packages of large peppers on December 15, 1979, at a price per unit of $8.00. (Respondent Exhibit 2B). On the same day, the Petitioner sent the Respondent a statement invoicing 600 large peppers at $9.00. (Respondent Exhibit 2). The 600 peppers were sold by the Respondent to Weiss Market for $8.00. (Testimony of Respondent). The $8.00 sale price was based on the prevailing market rate. (Testimony of Respondent). Invoice number 2911 was not disputed by the parties at the final hearing.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter an Order finding that the Petitioner is due the amount of $982.09 from the sale of these agricultural products by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Earl Peterson, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Division of Marketing Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Thomas J. Chastain Star Route "A", Box 110 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 C. J. Prettyman, III Vice President C. J. Prettyman, Jr., Inc. Broad Street Exmore, Virginia 23350 The Travelers Indemnity Company One Tower Square Hartford, Connecticut
The Issue An administrative complaint dated January 24, 1991, alleges that Respondent violated Chapter 450, F.S., Part III, by acting as a farm labor contractor without an active certificate of registration and by contracting with an unregistered individual. The issue for disposition is whether those violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Gabriel Bain, the Respondent, has worked in citrus fields for 37 years. At various times he has been registered as a farm labor contractor. He had his own company, Mid-Florida Harvesting, but became bankrupt in 1990 after the citrus freeze disaster. Bain's business address is 30 South Ivey Lane, Orlando, Florida. On or about December 14, 1990, Compliance Officers, Henry Parker and Marshall Carroll were at Nevins Fruit Company in Mims, Brevard County, checking leads on unregistered farm labor contractors. In the course of an interview with Steve Schaffer, Harvest Manager for Nevins, Gabriel Bain was called in as the man who was in charge of the harvesting job. Bain identified himself to the officers with a driver's license and did not have his certificate of registration with him. Schaffer produced the certificate that Bain had submitted when he was hired by Nevins. The certificate was in the name of General Traders, Inc., and had an expiration date of February 28, 1991. "G. Bain" was handwritten on the signature line. During the meeting with Carroll and Parker, on December 14, 1990, Bain freely admitted hiring Jerome Pender as a sub-contractor. Pender was not registered as a farm labor contractor, but had shown Bain papers that he had applied for his certificate. Bain signed a notarized statement attesting to this fact and gave it to the compliance officers. The compliance officers issued a summary of violations to Bain for utilization of an unregistered crewleader. At the time, they were unaware that Bain was, himself, unregistered. Gabriel Bain's registration in the name of Mid-Florida Harvesting expired on June 30, 1990. His application, in the name of General Traders, Inc., was approved on March 1, 1991. In December 1990, he was working for General Traders but was not included in that company's registration. He was not registered in any other name in December 1990, and a subsequent summary of violations was issued, citing "fail to register." In December 1990, at the time of the compliance officers' investigation, Gabriel Bain was working for Nevins Fruit Company as a farm labor contractor and was paid for his work in that capacity. In this work he subcontracted with other labor contractors who provided crews. At the hearing Bain claimed that he lied to the compliance officers about hiring Jerome Pender. He claimed he lied because he had actually hired Willie Simmons, someone whom the Nevins people had told him they did not want "within 100 miles" of their groves. This self-impeachment in no way advances Respondent's averment of innocence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a final order be entered, finding Gabriel Bain guilty of violating Sections 450.30(1), F.S. and 450.35, F.S., and assessing a civil fine of $1250.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARY W. CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Francisco Rivera, Sr. Atty. Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Gabriel Bain 30 S. Ivey Lane Orlando, Florida 32811 Frank Scruggs, Secretary 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn Chief Legal Counsel 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
