Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner John Crawford, operated Crawford and Son's Farms located in or near Lakeland, Florida, on which he grows produce including, inter alia, beans of the variety in controversy here. Respondent, Wishnatzki, is a produce broker located in Tampa, Florida, and has been in the business of brokering produce grown by Florida farmers throughout the United States for three generations. Petitioner and Respondent have done business together in the past on many occasions, without controversy, and have, over the years, developed an amicable business and well as personal relationship. For a substantial portion of that time, including the time in issue, the parties' transactions were consummated under a "written statement of terms and conditions" which called on the broker, Wishnatzki, to act as the grower's agent on the basis of "gross proceeds of a sale, less carrier, cooling, packing and palleting charges, if any, and a Grower's Agent's customary commission." At some time prior to April 28, 1994, Mr. Crawford, who was, at the time, carrying a bucket full of the beans later sold through Respondent, saw Mr. Wishnatzki who, he claims, indicated the beans could be worth $25.00 per bushel. The beans at hand were the earliest produced from the Petitioner's fields, however, and the main crop was not yet ready for harvesting. Mr. Crawford acknowledges this comment by Mr. Wishnatzki was no guarantee of price but merely an opinion, and Mr. Wishnatzki claims it was Crawford, not him, who stated a figure. Several days later, however, on or about May 3, 1994, while his beans were being picked, Mrs. Crawford spoke with Mr. Wishnatzki who said he needed beans and had a truck going to New York. According to Mrs. Crawford, Mr. Wishnatzki advised her they could probably get $20.00 per bushel for the beans if Crawford could get them in. Mrs. Crawford immediately went to Petitioner and told him what Respondent had said, and within two days, on May 3 and 4, 1994, Mr. Crawford delivered to Mr. Wishnatzki 164 bushels of beans. The beans were shipped up north, but in the interim, the price of beans, according to the Department of Agriculture's price report, dropped considerably from a price near $18.00 per bushel. Records maintained by Respondent reflect that between May 4 and May 7, 1994, Respondent sold the entire 164 bushels, in varying amounts, to six different customers, as follows: 5/4/94 Scarmardo Produce. 40 bu at $14.00/bu 5/5/94 C & S Wholesale Gro. 73 bu at 12.00/bu 5/5/94 C & S Wholesale Gro. 2 bu at 0.00/bu 5/5/94 Watson's Produce 5 bu at 16.00/bu 5/6/94 Scott Street Tomato Co. 5 bu at 16.00/bu 5/6/94 Sy Katz Produce 5 bu at 16.00/bu 5/7/94 Tamburo Bros. 34 bu at 4.00/bu Respondent received a total of $1,812.00 for the sale of all Petitioner's beans consigned to it for an average price of $11.04 per bushel. Notwithstanding Respondent was entitled, by the terms of the agreement between it and Petitioner, to deduct a commission on the sale, because of the long- standing harmonious relationship which had existed between them, and because Respondent felt it important to support its growers and insure their financial well-being, Respondent, nevertheless paid Petitioner the full amount it received, and an additional sum as well, for a total payment of $2,132.00. In other words, though Respondent received only an average of $11.04 per bushel from its customers for Petitioner's beans, it nevertheless paid Petitioner an average of $13.00 per bushel for the beans it received from him. Petitioner is not satisfied with the amount received, however, and claims Respondent sold the beans at a price below market. He refers to Mr. Wishnatzki's comment in passing in late April that the beans could bring $25.00 per bushel. He also notes that the market should have been good because of an infestation of bean virus due to white flies. He further contends that Respondent should not have sold the beans for such a low price; that Respondent should have checked with the northern markets, and if there was a problem with his beans, Respondent should have procured a government inspection of them. While he admits beans were in a downward fall, he does not believe the price dropped to $13.00 per bushel on a first hand picking. In support of his position, he refers to two separate market reports, the first dated May 4, 1994, and the other dated May 6, 1994. The former reflects a "fairly light" demand for beans, with handpicked beans selling between "16.00 and 18.65, mostly 16.65 few 12.00", and the latter reflects, for handpicked beans, a "fairly light" demand with sales at "14.00 - 16.65 few 12.00 occasional lower." Petitioner does not claim he should have received $18.00 per bushel which he cites, inaccurately, was the fair market price according to the Florida Market Reports cited above, but claims he could have come off that price if he had been contacted to negotiate price. However, the $18.00 price he cites was not, according to the evidence, the usual price received. The usual price was around $16.65, with some lower. In any case, the terms of the brokerage agreement does not provide for price negotiation after delivery is made to the broker. Further, Mr. Wishnatzki did not call Petitioner when he saw the beans were not selling well because they had already been picked and were in Respondent's hands. Not much could have been done at that point, and he had other growers to deal with as well. In addition, Mr. Crawford has access to the market report and knew the price was falling. He did not call Respondent to set a minimum price. According to Mr. Wishnatzki, the price paid to the growers is based upon the price his company receives for the produce. However, Respondent does not wait until it has been paid before paying its growers. When the produce is sold, the grower is paid, and Respondent receives payment from the buyer after that. There is no way to say with certainty when the grower delivers produce to Respondent what price an ultimate buyer will pay for that produce. Many factors come into play, including quality of the produce, current market price, supply and demand and the like. A market bulletin, published at the end of each market day, gives some idea of what the next day's price is likely to be, but only market conditions control the price. Review of the prices received by Respondent for the first 130 bushels of beans sold reflect a price of from $12.00 for the 73 bushels sold to C & S, to $14.00 for the 40 bushels sold to Scarmardo. The 15 bushels sold to three different brokers for $16.00 per bushel is but a small amount of the total. The remaining 34 bushels sold to Tamburo for $4.00 per bushel brought the average price received down, as did the two bushels for which no payment was received. Respondent claims they received only $4.00 per bushel from Tamburo because of a constant decline in the market during the entire week the beans were for sale, and the sale to Tamburo was, in effect, a distress sale. Wishnatzki started the week out offering the beans at $18.00 per bushel. The price was reduced each day until the final Saturday when it is usual to sell what they have left over for what they can get. On Saturday, May 7, Wishnatzki still had 34 bushels of beans left and Tamburo sold them at the lower price. It was lower that Wishnatzki had expected, but consistent with the agreement they had with Tamburo who had the beans on consignment. Mr. Wishnatzki asserts the sale at that price was a judgement call he had to make, but were he confronted with the same situation, he would do it again. At no time did Mr. Wishnatzki advise Mr. Crawford he could, or would, sell a given quantity of beans at a certain price. If he had known what price he would get for the beans at later sale, he would have paid Mr. Crawford on the spot, in advance. Further, even though at the beginning of the week in question the market reports showed beans selling for a good price, sales can not always be made at the reported market price. The price he gets is what his customers are willing to pay. His procedure is to send out a daily inventory sheet to each of his customers, nation-wide, by FAX. At the time these beans were delivered to Respondent, the demand was light, witnessed by the fact that it took a whole week to dispose of 164 bushels. That is not a large volume. While he understands Mr. Crawford's disappointment, it is a result of the fact that Crawford's expectations were higher than reality delivered. This has happened to growers before, and it will, no doubt, happen again.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Crawford & Son's Farms' claim against Respondent, Wishnatzki & Natel, Inc. and Continental Insurance Company, in the amount of $824.00, be denied. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John Crawford d/b/a Crawford & Son's Farms 2545 Sleepy Hill Road Lakeland, Florida 33809 ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 November, 1994. David L. Lapides, Esquire W. Edwin Litton, II, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 Tampa, Florida 33601 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Sun Coast Farms, is agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, a producer of agricultural products. The Respondent, South Dade Produce, is a dealer in agricultural products and is located in Naranja, Florida. On April 4, 1985, Mr. George Mason, salesman for Petitioner, received a call from Respondent proposing to buy some squash. An agreement was reached for the sale of 400 crates of crookneck squash (#1 grade) at a price of $10.20 per unit "FOB Florida City, Florida." The agreed upon price for the full amount of the squash was $4,080. The squash in question was grown and packed by Strano Farms in Florida City, Florida. The 400 cases of squash were received by Respondent on April 4, 1985. During an inspection of the squash, Mr. Cope, owner of South Dade Produce, noticed that some of the squash had wind scar. Mr. Cope felt that the wind scar damage was minor and proceeded to dispose of the squash as planned. One hundred cases of the squash were sold and shipped without difficulty and are not a part of this action. On April 4, 1985, the 300 cartons of squash in question were shipped to Texas in a refrigerator truck and delivered April 6, 1986 to Harrington Produce Company of Dallas, Texas, through Reaves Brokerage Company, also of Dallas. Harrington Produce Company planned to sell the squash to consumers through its own retail outlets. Upon examination of the squash at destination, Harrington Produce Company represented to Reaves Brokerage Company that it believed a portion of the squash were spoiled and unmarketable. Reaves Brokerage Company notified the Respondent of this potential problem and requested instruction. That same day, April 6, 1985, having received notice of the problem in Dallas, the Respondent notified George Mason, a salesman for Petitioner. George Mason indicated that a "federal inspection certificate" (an inspection performed upon receipt to verify the condition of produce) was not required. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent requested a federal inspection to verify the condition of the squash. In an accounting statement provided to Respondent on December 30, 1985 Harrington Produce stated that in order to render the squash sellable, it was necessary to run (sort and repack) the squash twice to assure that each carton contained only sound vegetables. Harrington Produce Company further asserted that the cost of sorting and repacking was $1.50 per finished carton per run or $540.00 for the 180 salvageable cartons which were kept and sold. Harrington Produce stated that it did not charge labor costs for unsellable cartons, but that 120 of the 300 cartons delivered were unsellable, which, at $10.35 per carton, meant an additional deduction of $1,242.00. Because of the foregoing, Harrington Produce Company deducted $1,782.00 as an adjustment to Respondent's bill. Because Harrington Produce deducted $1,782 from Respondent's billing, Respondent deducted $1,782 from Petitioner's payment. The parties stipulated that the unpaid amount on the contract for the 400 units of squash was $1,782. No "federal dump certificate" (a certification of spoilage done at the time that unmarketable produce is discarded) was performed on the 120 cartons of squash which were supposedly dumped by Harrington Produce Company. It is standard practice in the industry that an independent, third-party assessment of produce be performed prior to "dumping". Ordinarily, "certification" of the condition of produce by the ultimate purchaser himself is unacceptable. Where a "federal dump certificate" is unavailable, some other independent assessment of the produce is required. It is standard practice in the industry that the buyer receiving the problematic goods request the necessary inspections. It was the understanding of the parties, who had undertaken similar transactions previously, that adjustments to the price of the goods when subsequently resold could be passed back to the producer. However, it is normal and customary practice in the industry to have an independent entity, be it state, federal or private, inspect agricultural products before they are "dumped" or thrown away as unmarketable. On April 5, 1985, Petitioner invoiced Respondent $4,080 for the full amount of the squash. In May 1985, Respondent remitted to Petitioner the sum of $2,298, leaving a balance due of $1,782. On June 21, 1985, Petitioner requested an accounting from Respondent for the sale of the Dallas squash. On August 1, 1985, Petitioner again requested an accounting from Respondent. On January 2, 1986, Respondent submitted a letter from Harrington Produce, dated December 30, 1985, accounting for the disposition of the 300 units of squash. On April 4, 1985, 1,800 units of squash harvested from the same field as the squash in question, were packaged by Strano Farms and sold without any complaints or returns.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent is indebted to, and required to pay, the amount of $1,782.00 to the Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of July, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1029A The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5 and 12. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Matters not contained therein are rejected as a recitation of testimony and/or subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Addressed in procedural background section of R.O. Addressed in procedural background section of R.O. COPIES FURNISHED: Vincent J. Fiorica 5856 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33144 Steven F. Brines 48 Northeast 15th Street Homestead, Florida 33133 Hon. Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Kight Bureau of Lic. & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 F. J. Manuel, Jr., Esquire Welbaum, Zook, Jones & Williams Post Office Box 3626 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners and the Respondents had a contractual agreement, whereby the Respondents agreed to purchase watermelons from the Petitioners during the 1978 harvest season. The Petitioners were to be compensated for their watermelons by the pound as the melons crossed the scales during loading of the melons onto trucks. The actual price fluctuated based upon the market conditions. The Respondents' employees were responsible for picking and loading the melons. Pete Potenza was in charge of the loading operation for the Respondents. Mr. Potenza advised the Respondents that the price for the watermelons would be two and one-half cents per pound for the medium watermelons and three cents per pound for large ones. At the agreed price, the Petitioners would have been entitled to compensation of $1,197.75 for one load of watermelons, and $1,083.50 for another load. The Respondents compensated them $958.20 and $866.80 for the respective loads. The price paid by the Respondents was less than had been agreed upon. The Petitioners are entitled to $217.50 additional compensation for the first load, and $239.55 additional compensation for the second load. The Petitioners are entitled to total additional compensation in the amount of $457.05. There was no dispute as to the quality of the Petitioners' melons. The Respondents picked several loads of melons from the Petitioners subsequent to those which were disputed. Mr. Potenza advised the Petitioners that they would receive additional compensation, but they have not. The Respondents are licensed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as an agricultural commodity dealer. The Respondents have filed a $20,000.00 bond with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services finding that the Petitioners are entitled to $457.05 in additional compensation for agricultural goods which they sold to the Respondents and requiring the Respondents to pay this sum to the Petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32304 William F. York, Esq. GILMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HANRAHAN Ten Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 J. Victor Africano, Esq. P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, FL 32060 Joseph Pellegrino, President A. Pellegrino & Sons, Inc. 24 New England Produce Center Chelsea, MA 02150 E. G. Musleh, Esq. P. O. Box 924 Ocala, FL 32670
Findings Of Fact Arvin C. Moore was a registered real estate broker from January 3, 1977, and active firm member of Real Estate 3 Incorporated, a registered corporate broker with an address registered with the Petitioner Commission as Route 2, Box 59B, Chipley, Florida 32428. Prior to January 3, 1977, Alvin C. Moore was a registered real estate salesman, registered as of September 2, 1975. Regarding the allegations that Respondent Moore was an officer of American Universal Investment Corporation at the time he acted as broker in the Tew transaction, the evidence presented showed that Moore resigned as president of American on April 29, 1977. Negotiations with the purchaser Tew began in the summer of 1977, and the contract between American and Tew was entered into on or about July 20, 1977. Moore was made vice president of American on November 3, 1977, some time after Tew had advised that he did not wish to complete the purchase. The evidence shows that Moore advised Tew that the property in which Tew was interested was owned by members of his family. Whether the corporation was identified as a closely-held corporation is not relevant, because Moore had advised Tew of his potential personal interest in the transaction. Moore advised Tew, after Tew expressed an interest in the property, that he would see for what price his family would be willing to sell the property. Moore advised Tew that the family would sell eleven (11) acres for $9,900. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Moore told Tew that American's cost was $900 per acre, and that this was a misrepresentation concerning the facts of the sale. The evidence shows that the seller, White, received $36,000 from the sale of the property to American; however, American paid $4,000 in brokerage fees to Moore. American's cost was $40,000. The parcel contained approximately fifty-eight (58) acres, but this included approximately eight (B) acres of public roads. In addition some of the land was so low that it was not usable. Depending upon what cost and acreage figures were used, the price per acre varied from $620 to approximately $900 per acre. Moore was representing American in this transaction and, as a real estate broker, was permitted to present the property in its best light. Representing the purchase price as $900 is not a misrepresentation but mere puffing. Moore's sole duty to Tew was to deal at arm's length with him. No evidence exists that Moore did not deal at arm's length with Tew. Further, concerning the representations regarding the cost paid by American, it is noted that these representations are irrelevant to Tew's right to reject the tendered offer from American. No evidence was presented that Tew was induced into the contract by the representation that American paid $900 per acre for the property. American tendered a written contract to White on September 23, 1976, which was rejected. However, this contract became the basis for further negotiation which resulted in an oral contract for sale between American and White. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine when this contract was consummated; however, negotiations of certain details continued until after the Tew/American contract was executed. These negotiations between American and White included an arrangement for White to transfer the the eleven (11) acre parcel which Tew was purchasing directly to Tew and convey the remainder to American, avoiding a dual transfer and dual taxation. The Complaint alleges that Moore misrepresented the contract to Tew because American did not have title to or an assignable interest in the property. The facts show that a contract did exist between White and American, and that White concurred in the transfer to Tew. Although this oral contract was not legally enforceable, as agent for American Moore was aware that the oral contract was sufficient for American and that American was acting in reliance on its oral contract with White in making on offer to Tew. The contract between American and Tew was a valid enforceable written contract notwithstanding whether American had or obtained title to the White property. Tew could have sued for damages if American had not obtained the property, or for specific performance had American acquired the property and refused to transfer it to Tew. Tew's interests were not jeopardized under the contract. Although Moore's duty to American is not at issue, Moore's duty did not extend to protecting American from its own acts. Moore had no duty to advise Tew that the oral contract for purchase was not enforceable. The evidence shows that Tew accepted the contract for purchase and sale for eleven (11) acres at $9,900 and was satisfied with this transaction until his sister-in-law advised him that one of White's agents had told her American had purchased the property for approximately $500 per acre. At this point, Tew sought to withdraw from the contract. This explains the origin of Tew's complaint against Moore and Tew's interest in the outcome, because the American/Tew contract contained a default clause. Clearly, Tew defaulted on the contract by refusing to go through with it when American stood ready to convey the property to him. Moore deposited the $1,000 deposit check he received from Tew to the escrow account of the Washington County Abstract Company, a title company located and doing business in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no formal action be taken against the Respondents, Arvin C. Moore and Real Estate 3 Incorporated. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day off October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Russell A. Cole, Jr., Esquire 206 East Iowa Avenue Bonifay, Florida 32425
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent pay petitioner $12,057.68 for the 2,324 bushels of soybeans purchased on January 6 and 7, 1983. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul M. Hendrick, Esquire P. O. Drawer 151 Jasper, Florida 32052 Terry R. McDavid, Esquire P. O. Box 1328 Lake City, Florida 32055 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Reggie Pennington Crawford and Company P. O. Box 1113 Lake City, Florida 32055
The Issue Whether or not Respondent, Dixie Growers, Inc., is indebted to Petitioner, Leah Raulerson, for agriculture produce purchased and not paid for in the amount of $3,722.49.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. During times material, Petitioner, Leah Raulerson, was an agricultural producer within the meaning of Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes and concentrated primarily in the production of peppers. During times material, Respondent, Dixie Growers, Inc., was an agricultural dealer within the meaning of Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, and wholesaler and purchased peppers from Petitioner during May and June, 1992. Respondent, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, issued a surety bond to Respondent Dixie during times material. During late May and June, 1992, Petitioner sold various types of pepper including hungarian wax, finger hots, long hots, bell pepper, fancy cubanelle and jalopeno to Respondent Dixie. During times material, Petitioner inquired of one of Respondent Dixie's owners, Charles Lawton, what the wholesale market was bringing for the type of peppers that she produced and desired to sell. Respondent Dixie advised that the average wholesale price was $8.00 per box. Petitioner told Respondent Dixie, that she could sell her peppers for that price but if the market deteriorated to the point where the price was $4.00 or less per box that she should be advised whereupon she would cease picking the peppers as her labor and other related costs would be below her breakeven point of $4.00 per box. Respondent Dixie, advised Petitioner that he (Charles Lawton) would let her know if the market declined. The agreement was struck and Petitioner was advised by Respondent Dixie to "bring the peppers on." Based on their agreement, Petitioner continued picking the peppers. Petitioner delivered to Respondent Dixie, a load of the various types of peppers that she produced and expected to be compensated at the rate of an average of $8.00 per box for her produce. Petitioner was not paid for the peppers at that time nor was she told that she should not bring any more peppers to Respondent's warehouse. Approximately two weeks from the date of delivery, Petitioner was paid an average of $1.03 per box by Respondent Dixie. Petitioner provided copies of the wholesale market reports for the types of peppers that she produced and sold to Respondent, Dixie, during May and June, 1992. The reports reflect an average wholesale price of $8.00 per box. Petitioner is owed by Respondent Dixie, the sum of $3,722.49 for nonpayment of produce (peppers) that she delivered to Respondent Dixie during May and June, 1992. Respondent Dixie, has countered that Petitioner's produce was bad and that the market had declined to the point whereupon they (Dixie Growers) were only able to obtain approximately $1.03 per box for the produce that Petitioner sold to Respondent Dixie. However, Respondent Dixie, failed to present any credible evidence which would establish that either Petitioner's produce was bad or that they were only able to obtain $1.03 as contended. No evidence was presented that the market declined or situation was anything different from the prices Petitioner was quoted and as reflected by the prices shown in the wholesale market reports. It is more probable than not that Respondent Dixie received the amounts reflected in the wholesale market reports for the produce that it purchased from Petitioner during May and June, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Agriculture, Bureau of License and Bond, issue a Final Order requiring that Respondent, Dixie Growers, Inc., pay to Petitioner the sum of $3,722.49 as claimed for agricultural produce purchased from Petitioner. In the event that Respondent Dixie fails to pay Petitioner, within 30 days of the date of the Department's Final Order, the sum of $3,722.49, that Respondent, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, as surety, remit to the Department that sum which should then be timely remitted to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 17th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Terry Lawton P. O. Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564 U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company Legal Department P. O. Box 1138 Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0000 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture The Capitol - PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Dixie Growers, Inc. P. O. Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol - PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0350
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discharging Petitioner because of his age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent produces flexible packaging, develops technology to fill that packaging with liquids, and provides services to incorporate its flexible packaging systems into its customers' facilities. Respondent primarily produces "bag-in- box" products and manufacturing systems for customers such as Pepsi-Cola and Wendy's, as well as various customers in the milk, juice, and chemical business. Respondent operates two manufacturing facilities, one located at its headquarters in Romeville, Illinois, and another located in Union City, California. Petitioner was born on April 24, 1946. In 1996, Respondent hired Petitioner as a sales representative, and he served in that position until he was discharged on April 19, 2004. Petitioner initially was assigned to service the Upper Midwest Region and was based in Chicago, Illinois. In 1999, Respondent reassigned Petitioner to the Southeast Region. After his reassignment to the Southeast Region, Petitioner continued to live in the Chicago area for several years. However, in December 2002 or January 2003, Petitioner and Respondent mutually agreed that Petitioner would relocate to Florida. Because the move resulted from a mutual decision between Petitioner and one of Respondent's founders, Respondent paid $25,000 towards Petitioner's moving expenses. After the move, Petitioner continued to be responsible for the same geographical territory and the same customers as before the move. Joe Pranckus is Respondent's vice president of sales. At the time of Petitioner's discharge, the sales department consisted of a customer service department and four geographical sales territories: the Central, Western, Eastern and Mexico Regions. The Central and Western Regions (where Respondent's manufacturing facilities are located) each were overseen by a regional manager. The Eastern and Mexico Regions did not have regional managers. As Petitioner was located in the Eastern Region, Mr. Pranckus served as his direct supervisor. From 1999 until his dismissal, Petitioner was Respondent’s only sales representative in the Southeast. His primary responsibility was to maintain and increase Respondent’s business in that region of the country. The Rapak sales department as a whole is generally responsible for maintaining and increasing Respondent’s overall sales. This involves not only selling products and services, but also following up with customers to help them solve problems and otherwise to ensure their happiness. Because his primary responsibility was maintaining and increasing sales, Mr. Pranckus judged Petitioner almost exclusively by his year-to-date sales numbers as compared to the same period in the previous year. These numbers were calculated by Mr. Pranckus on a fiscal-year basis, from May 1st through April 30th. For the 2003-2004 fiscal year, Mr. Pranckus established a goal for Petitioner of 15 percent growth in sales. The minimum expectation was that Petitioner maintain at least the same amount of sales he had the previous year. During the 2003-2004 fiscal year, Mr. Pranckus e- mailed Petitioner his sales-versus-last-year figures on almost a monthly basis. By the end of June 2003, Petitioner had sold only 84 percent as much as he had sold through June 2002; by the end of July, only 87 percent as much as he had sold through July 2002; by the end of August, 91 percent; September, 81 percent; October, 90 percent; November, 85 percent; December, 87 percent; and by the end of March 2004 (eleven months into the fiscal year), he had sold only 88 percent as much as he had sold through the first eleven months of the 2002-2003 fiscal year. In short, as the fiscal year drew to a close, it was clear that Petitioner was going to suffer a net loss of business for the year. In late October 2003, Petitioner suffered a heart attack and underwent triple bypass surgery. Petitioner was unable to work for approximately two months while recovering from surgery. However, Petitioner returned to work in January 2004, initially working on a limited basis. Petitioner's sales numbers suffered because he lost some certain accounts owing to factors beyond his control (such as product quality and price issues). Nonetheless, Petitioner concedes that it was his job to replace his lost sales, no matter what caused his customers to switch suppliers. Mr. Pranckus typically holds one sales meeting each year for his entire staff. In February 2004, Mr. Pranckus held one of those meetings. At that meeting, Mr. Pranckus informed Petitioner that "changes would be made if [his] numbers didn't improve." In his application for unemployment compensation, Petitioner stated that Mr. Pranckus also warned him on March 10, 2004, that he needed to improve his sales numbers. Finally, Mr. Pranckus sent an e-mail to Petitioner on March 27, 2004. In that e-mail, Mr. Pranckus delivered the following written warning: Your territory is at a critical state. We can not continue along this path. Sales must be improved immediately or we will need to change. We agreed at our sales meeting to get this back on track. It is not showing up in the numbers and activity. Call me and let me know how we can help. On April 19, 2004, Mr. Pranckus discharged Petitioner because of his poor performance. His year-to-date sales figures were unacceptably low, as compared to the previous year, and Mr. Pranckus saw no evidence of plans or activity designed to improve matters. After Petitioner was discharged, he filed an application for unemployment compensation. On the application, Petitioner stated that he was discharged “for failure to achieve sales goals.” Later in that same application, in response to a request to “briefly summarize your reason for separation from this employer,” Petitioner wrote: “I did not achieve my sales goals.” Petitioner did not assert anywhere in his application for unemployment benefits that he was discharged because of his age. At the time of his discharge, Petitioner was 57 years old (almost 58). Mr. Pranckus did not know Petitioner’s exact age, but he would have guessed (based on physical appearance) that Petitioner was in his mid-50s at the time. Mr. Pranckus did not consider this to be “old.” In fact, Petitioner is not much older than Mr. Pranckus. Mr. Pranckus interviewed three individuals to fill Petitioner’s position. He ultimately selected Jim Wulff. Mr. Pranckus did not know their ages at the time of the interviews, but he would have guessed (again, by appearance) that Mr. Wulff was in his mid-50s and that the other two interviewees were in their mid- to late 40s and mid- to late 50s, respectively. In fact, Mr. Wulff was born on May 26, 1948, so he was 55 years old (nearly 56) when Mr. Pranckus hired him. Sales analysis from June 2003 showed that eight Rapak employees or representatives did not meet the 100 percent sales goal. Those listed were either Rapak non-supervising employees with direct responsibility for sales, supervising employees, or non-employee independent brokers. However, none of these employees, whether younger or older, was similarly situated to Petitioner at the time of his discharge. As an initial matter, there were four other non- supervisory employees with direct responsibility for sales: Dennis Hayes, Marvin Groom, Donald Young, and Keith Martinez. The other individuals responsible for sales were either supervisory employees or non-employee independent brokers. Because the two supervisors have management responsibilities and are responsible for their entire regions and the individuals who report to them, they are not judged primarily by whether they personally meet the 100 percent or 115 percent sales-versus- last-year objectives. Brokers, meanwhile, are not employees. Rather, they are independent contractors paid on a straight commission, so Respondent receives value from their services regardless of how much they sell. Mr. Hayes was the only other employee who performed the exact same job as Petitioner, but he reported to Regional Manager Dan Petriekis in the Central Region, not directly to Mr. Pranckus. Moreover, as of March 2004, Mr. Hayes had sold 127 percent as much as he had during the same period the previous year.1 Mr. Hayes is almost ten years older than Petitioner. Mr. Young was also responsible for sales, but he was semi-retired, serviced only one customer and received a base salary for his work. As of March 2004, however, Mr. Young had sold 115 percent as much as he had during the same period the previous year. Mr. Young is more than twelve years older than Petitioner. Finally, while Keith Martinez and Marvin Groom had some responsibility for sales, their positions were “radically different” from Petitioner’s. Whereas Petitioner could identify certain problems with Respondent’s machinery and products and would refer those problems to a service technician to assist his customers, Mr. Groom and Mr. Martinez were both originally hired as service technicians. Based on this experience, they could and did not only identify technical problems, but also performed the necessary maintenance and repair work on the spot, in addition to performing preventative maintenance. Petitioner, by contrast, has spent his entire working life as salesman. Accordingly, he was neither capable of, nor expected to, perform these additional maintenance and repair functions. As a result, Mr. Groom and Mr. Martinez received more leeway on their sales performance than Petitioner because they brought additional value to Respondent’s business that Petitioner could not offer. Nonetheless, as of March 2004, Mr. Groom was running at 100 percent versus the prior year and Mr. Martinez was running at 87 percent. Mr. Groom is roughly three years younger than Petitioner, and Mr. Martinez is 15 and one-half years younger than Petitioner. Respondent paid Petitioner $113,000 in salary and commissions during his last full calendar year of employment with Rapak. Petitioner was out of work for ten months after his dismissal. During that time, he received $8,000 in unemployment compensation from the State of Florida and $8,942.33 in severance pay from Respondent. In his new job, Petitioner projects that he will earn $100,000 in his first year but admits that he could make at least $113,000 because his compensation is once again dependent upon sales commissions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent committed no unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 26th day of July, 2006.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $5,640.19 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is surety for Respondent Griffin d/b/a Quality. Petitioners' claims against the dealer and his bond are listed in the Amended Complaint in the following amounts and categories: 6-18-92 Inv. #657 45,580 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $2,279.00 Advance - 700.00 NWPB* - 9.12 $1,569.88 6-19-92 Inv. #668 2,490 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 124.50 (paid for 42,860 lbs. short 2,490 lbs.) NWPB* - .50 124.00 6-20-92 Inv. #695 6,818 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 340.90 (paid for 39,062 lbs. short 6,818 lbs.) NWPB* 1.36 339.54 6-20-92 Inv. @ #702 .05 39,880 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $1,994.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 7.98 Pmt. - 90.00 1,186.02 6-21-92 Inv. @ #706 .05 44,740 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $2,237.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 8.95 1,518.05 6-22-93 Inv. @ #716 .04 11,280 lbs. Crimson melons lb. NWPB* - 2.32 460.88 6-22-92 Inv. @ #709 .04 46,740 lbs. Crimson melons lb. $1,869.60 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 9.35 1,150.25 Deducted for #706 - 441.82 441.82 PAID 708.43 Total Claimed $5,640.19 *NWPB = National Watermelon Promotion Board Fee Petitioners and Respondent dealer have had an oral business relationship for four to five years. Both parties agree that their oral agreement initially called for a federal inspection to be done on each load if the load were refused in whole or in part by the ultimate recipient. Respondent Griffin contended that over the years there had been further oral agreements to "work out" or "ride out" small discrepancies or partial refusals of loads without resorting to federal inspections, the cost of which inspections could eliminate the entire profit on single loads. Petitioners denied that such an amended oral agreement was ever reached and further maintained that the amounts of the loads at issue herein could not be considered "small" by any interpretation. Respondent submitted no evidence as to what the relative terms, "large" and "small," mean in the industry. Consequently, it appears that there was never a meeting of the minds of the parties on the alleged oral contract amendments relied upon by Respondent. Respondent testified that in past years, prior to 1992, he had interpreted the term "ride it out" to mean that he would simply accept the hearsay statements of ultimate recipients that named poundages of melons were bad and he would let the ultimate recipients pay for only the melons they said were good. Respondent would thereafter absorb any losses himself, not passing on the loss by deducting any amount from the full amount he would normally pay to the growers within ten days. However, 1992 was such a bad year for melons that the Respondent dealer chose not to absorb the greater losses and passed them on to the growers by way of deductions on "settlement sheets." In 1992 Respondent sent Petitioners the settlement sheets with the deductions explained thereon with the net payments as much as thirty days after the ultimate sales. Upon the foregoing evidence, it appears that Respondent had established a course of business whereby Petitioners could reasonably have expected him to absorb any losses occasioned by Respondent's reliance on hearsay statements of the ultimate recipients concerning poor quality melons unless Respondent chose not to test the questionable melons with a federal inspection. Petitioners obtained Exhibit P-5 for load 657 at Respondent dealer's place of business, but were not certain it applied to the load Mr. Tucker claimed he delivered to Respondent on 6-18-92 because Mr. Tucker did not know his load number that day. The exhibit represents the weight ticket Petitioners believe applies to the load which Mr. Tucker claimed to have delivered to Respondent dealer on 6-18-92. However, the exhibit bears two other names, "Jones and Smith," not Petitioners' respective names of Tucker or Watson. It has "WACC" handwritten across it, which Mr. Tucker claimed signified the name of his watermelon field. The number "657" also has been handwritten across it. There is no evidence of who wrote any of this on the exhibit. Respondent denied that load 657 was received from Mr. Tucker. The exhibit shows a printed gross weight of 78,900 lbs., tare weight of 32,860 lbs. and net weight of 66,800 lbs. Net weights are supposed to signify the poundage of melons delivered to the dealer. Nothing on the exhibit matches Mr. Tucker's journal entry (Petitioners' Exhibit 3) of delivering 45,580 lbs. of watermelons to Respondent dealer on 6- 18-92. Mr. Tucker testified that he was never paid for his delivery. Respondent denied there was such a delivery and testified that he paid Jones and Smith for load 657. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $1,569.88 on Invoice 657. Petitioners' Exhibit P-4 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records that Petitioners contend apply to load 668. The first page has "45,350/6-19-92/Scott Tucker WACC" handwritten across it. None of the four poundages imprinted thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 668, and subtracting amounts testified to also does not conform these figures to Petitioners' claim on load 668. The second page weight ticket shows a date of 6-18-92 and a weight of 34,260 lbs. It also does not match Petitioner's claim that they were owed for 45,350 lbs. but were paid for only 42,860 lbs., being paid 2,490 lbs. short. Exhibit P-8 is the 668 invoice/settlement sheet which Respondent provided to Petitioners and shows invoice 668 with date of 6-19-92, tare and pay weight of 42,860 lbs. at $.05/lb. for $2,143.00 less $8.57 melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB, see supra) for $2,134.43, less a $700.00 advance and $10.00 for packing straw for a total due Petitioners of $1,424.43 which Respondent has already paid. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $124.00 on Invoice 668. Petitioners Exhibit P-6 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records. The first page has "45,880 lbs./6-20-92/Scott Tucker Crimson WACC 695" handwritten across it. None of the printed gross, tare, or net weights thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 695. The second page shows the date 6-20-92 and a printed net weight of 32,000 lbs. Respondent dealer provided Petitioners with Exhibit P-7, invoice/settlement sheet 695 dated 6-20-92 showing tare and pay weights of 39,062 lbs. priced at $.05/lb. totalling $1,953.10, less melon adv. assoc. (a/k/a NWPB) fee of $7.81, for $1,945.29, less $700.00 advanced, less $10.00 for packing straw for a total of $1,235.29. The foregoing do not support Petitioner Tucker's claim based on his journal entry (P-3) that he was entitled to be paid for 45,880 lbs. he claims he delivered that day instead of for 39,062 pounds (short by 6,818 pounds) with balance owing to him of $339.54. Respondent has paid what was owed on invoice 695. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 9 shows that Petitioner Tucker delivered 39,880 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-20-92 and Petitioner Watson received back from Respondent dealer an invoice/settlement sheet 702 showing 39,880 pounds @ $.05/lb. equalling $1,994.00 and that although $1,994.00 was owed Petitioners, Respondent thereafter subtracted for $800.00 worth of returned melons, a $700.00 advance, $7.98 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), and $10.00 for packing straw, and that a balance was paid to Petitioners of only $90.00. This is arithmetically illogical. The subtractions total $1,517.98. Therefore, if all of Respondent's subtractions were legitimate, the total balance due Petitioners would have been $476.02. If the right to deduct for the $800.00 in returned melons were not substantiated by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners would be due $1,276.02. Since all parties acknowledge that $90.00 was already paid by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners are due $1,186.02 if Respondent did not substantiate the right to deduct the $800.00. Load 702 was "graded out," i.e. accepted as satisfactory, by a representative of Respondent dealer or a subsequent holder in interest when the melons were delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer. That fact creates the presumption that the melons were received in satisfactory condition by the Respondent dealer. Nothing persuasive has been put forth by the Respondent dealer to show that the situation concerning the melons' quality had changed by the time the load arrived at its final destination. Respondent got no federal inspection on this load and relied on hearsay statements by persons who did not testify as to some melons being inferior. In light of the standard arrangement of the parties over the whole course of their business dealings (see Findings of Fact 5-7 supra), Petitioners have proven entitlement to the amount claimed on load 702 of $1,186.02. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite 10 shows Petitioners Tucker and Watson delivered 44,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-21-92. At $.05/lb., Petitioners were owed $2,237.00, less melon adv. association fee (a/k/a NWPB) of $8.95, $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for straw. Those deductions are not at issue. Therefore, Petitioners would be owed $1,518.05, the amount claimed, from Respondent. However, the invoice also notes that Respondent made a $268.18 deduction for melons returned. Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 purports to be a BB&W Farms Loading Sheet and Federal Inspection Sheet. Respondent offered this exhibit to show that only $68.18 was realized by him on load 706 which he attributed to Petitioner Watson. However, the federal inspector did not testify as to the results of the inspection, the inspection sheet itself is illegible as to "estimated total," the "estimated total" has been written in by another hand as "$62.60," and there was no explanation on the Composite Exhibit or in testimony as to how Respondent dealer came up with $200.00 in "return lumping charges" as also indicated on Exhibit R-1. Accordingly, Petitioners have established that with regard to load/invoice 706, they delivered watermelons worth $2,237.00 to Respondent dealer and Respondent dealer did not affirmatively establish that any melons were bad, despite the federal inspection sheet introduced in evidence. Petitioners have proven entitlement to their claim on invoice 706 for $1,518.05. However, Petitioners conceded that Respondent actually paid them $441.82 on invoice/settlement sheet 706. Therefore, they are only entitled to recoup a total of $1,076.23 on their claim for Invoice 706. In the course of formal hearing, Respondent dealer admitted that, with regard to load invoice 716, (Tucker) he did owe Petitioners $460.88 for 275 watermelons, and that it had not been paid purely due to clerical error. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 12 (Invoice and Weight Tickets 709, Watson) shows Petitioner Watson delivered 46,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-22-92 and at $.04 lb., Petitioners were owed $1,869.60, less appropriate deductions. Petitioners conceded that Respondent dealer appropriately deducted $9.35 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for packing straw, bringing the amount they were owed to $1,150.25. Petitioners and Respondent are in agreement the Respondent paid only $708.43 of the $1,150.25 owed on invoice/settlement sheet 709 because Respondent dealer also deducted from the amount owed on invoice 709 the $441.82 he had previously paid out on Invoice 706. See, Finding of Fact 13, supra. Since Petitioners have established that they were owed $1,518.05 on invoice 706 but were paid only $441.82 thereon, it appears that Petitioners should be paid $1,076.23 on Invoice 706 and realize nothing on Invoice 709.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioners $1,186.02 on invoice 702, $1,076.23 on invoice 706, and $460.88 on invoice 716 for a total of $2,723.13, dismissing all other claimed amounts, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $2,723.13, which in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company's case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 30th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Tucker and Phillip Watson Route 2 Box 280 Trenton, FL 32693 Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage Post Office Box 889 Immokalee, FL 33934 William J. Moore USF&G Post Office Box 31143 Tampa, FL 33631 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner (complainant) is entitled to recover $1,340.50 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a grower of watermelons and qualifies as a "producer" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. is listed as surety for Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. The amount and period of the bond have not been established. The time material to the amended complaint is June, 1994. Two or three weeks before Petitioner's melons were ready for harvest, Steve Helms personally came to Petitioner's home and requested to ship Petitioner's melons for ultimate retail sale. Petitioner requested to be paid "up front." Mr. Helms would not agree to pay all the money "up front" but agreed to pay some. He also agreed to pay within 14 days of the first shipment. Petitioner had had a bad experience two years previously, so he got Mr. Helms to promise to "clean up" his field. This expression is subject to some interpretation, and although Petitioner initially stated that the agreement was for Respondent broker-shipper to buy all his melons regardless of condition, Petitioner later modified his statement to say that Mr. Helms only promised not to take the best melons and leave the rest. Harvesting began May 15, 1994. Until June 10, 1994, Petitioner's usual contact with Respondent broker- shipper was Frank Favuzza, who oversaw all weighing and loading and assessed the Petitioner's melons on behalf of Respondent broker-shipper. On June 10, 1994, Mr. Helms was again personally in the field. Petitioner told Mr. Helms that he had to get the remainder of the melons off the field by Sunday, otherwise the heat would ruin them. Mr. Helms said he would wait until Monday. Petitioner believes that if the melons had been harvested by Sunday, June 12, 1994, three truckloads could have been harvested. On Monday, less than a full truckload was in good enough condition to be loaded onto a truck. A lot of melons were going bad and were left in the field to rot. On Tuesday, June 14, 1994, Petitioner's melons were weighed at Romeo, Florida and the poundage established at 29,330 pounds. Frank Favuzza estimated to Petitioner that his melons would only bring $.04/lb. From this conversation, related by Petitioner, it may be clearly inferred that Petitioner knew he would not be paid until after Respondent broker-shipper received payment from the ultimate retailer at the other end of the transaction. Petitioner's amended complaint alleged the amounts due as follows: "On June 1, 1994, #92111, 700 lbs. at $.07 equals $49.00, not $490.00; June 3, 1994, #92117, 900 lbs. at $.07 equals $63.00, not $630.00; and June 3, 1994, #92120, 790 lbs. at $.07 equals $55.30, not $553.00. Therefore Item (12) Complaint Total is amended to $1,340.00." The amendments did not alter the original claim for 6-14-94, invoice 92157 for 29,330 lbs. of melons at $.04 for $1,173.20. There was no claim for the melons that rotted in Petitioner's field. Weight tickets and Respondent's corresponding broker-shipper's bills of lading were admitted in evidence. These showed the following amounts were received by Respondent broker-shipper: 6/1/94 INVOICE 92111 46,020 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92117 45,580 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92120 44,720 net weight melons 6/14/94 INVOICE 92157 29,330 net weight melons Petitioner testified, without refutation, that he was present at each weighing and that he had agreed to take $.07 per pound on all loads except for the June 14, 1994 load for which he was claiming $.04 per pound. The bills of lading support Petitioner's testimony as to the price per pound. The bills of lading also clearly show that the price per pound was "to farm minus labor." This notation means that the net amount to be paid Petitioner by Respondent was subject to a prior deduction for labor, but it cannot reasonably be inferred to include a deduction for shipping. Petitioner's last load of 29,330 lbs. of melons weighed on June 14, 1994 was less than a full truckload, so Respondent added melons from another farm to that truck to make up a full load. Respondent broker-shipper did not pay Petitioner for 700 pounds of the June 1, 1994, invoice 92111 truckload; for 900 pounds of the first June 3, 1994 invoice 92117 truckload; for 790 pounds of the second June 3, 1994 invoice 92120 truckload; or for any (29,330 pounds) of the June 14, 1994 invoice 92157 truckload, upon grounds that those melons were not saleable at their destination. Petitioner put in evidence Exhibit P-3 which is an accounting Respondent had sent him. It shows that Respondent broker-shipper had deducted $690.30 for labor on invoice 92111 and claimed 700 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $683.70 for labor on invoice 92117 and claimed 900 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $670.80 for labor on invoice 92120 and claimed 790 pounds could not be sold; and had paid Petitioner nothing on a June 14, 1994 truckload, invoice 92159. Invoice 92157, which corresponds to Petitioner's June 14, 1994 partial truckload of 29,330 pounds of melons, is not listed or otherwise explained in the exhibit. The exhibit is conclusionary and inexplicably is dated 1993. There is no back-up evidence to support Respondent's making these deductions. No inspection certificate or labor charges are in evidence. Petitioner's initial complaint, which he put in evidence as P-1, constitutes an admission by him. In the complaint, Petitioner contended (1) that he was selling "direct" to Respondent broker-shipper; (2) that he was selling "f.o.b."; and (3) that he was selling "Fob shipping point excectance (sic) after final inspection." Petitioner also stated therein that he was given an inspection sheet showing 46,310 lbs. of watermelons had failed inspection and he did not feel the melons that failed inspection were his melons because Frank Favuzza approved of all melons loaded from Petitioner's field and the inspection sheet did not say that the bad melons were Petitioner's melons. Somewhat contrariwise, Petitioner testified at formal hearing that he had asked Respondent broker-shipper for a government inspection certificate showing that his melons were bad and never got it. From the credible evidence as a whole, it is inferred that Petitioner sold his watermelons on the June 14, 1994 truckload at $.04 per pound contingent upon the melons arriving at their ultimate destination in saleable condition per a federal inspection. It is further inferred that the prior three loads at issue also were sold contingent upon their arriving in saleable condition. The evidence as a whole also supports a finding that Petitioner's melons left the weigh station in a condition capable of being sold for the respective prices agreed upon between Petitioner and Respondent broker-shipper. Any deterioration of melons between June 10, 1994 when Petitioner requested that the broker-shipper take the last load and June 14, 1994 when the last load actually was weighed and shipped is attributable to Respondent broker-shipper, but that fact is not significant since the lesser rate of $.04/lb. was agreed upon prior to shipping and after Respondent broker-shipper had seen and approved the loaded melons. Petitioner's foregoing evidence of delivering saleable quality melons to Respondent broker-shipper is unrefuted. The presumption is thereby created that but for some failure of Respondent broker-shipper, the melons would have arrived at their ultimate destination in saleable condition. There is no evidence of record to support Respondent's deductions for "labor," or for melons which allegedly could not be sold upon delivery at the ultimate destination. Petitioner moved ore tenus to further amend his complaint to include a prayer for reimbursement for the cost of the melons which rotted in his field and became unsaleable between June 10 and June 14, 1994 due to Respondent broker-shipper's delay in loading and to assert a claim for interest on the $1,340.50 claim. This motion was denied as too late.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioner $1,340.50, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $1,340.50, which in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-6189A The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Accepted. Rejected as unnecessary Rejected as subordinate and mere argumentation. 5-6 Rejected as mere argumentation. Rejected as these were not the dates testified. Rejected as mere argumentation. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc.'s PFOF: 1 Accepted. 2-4 Rejected as not proven. Accepted as to the June 10-14, 1994 load. Rejected as not proven. Not proven in whole. Covered to the extent proven. While one inference might be that a different invoice number was assigned to the combined load, that is not the only reasonable inference based on the evidence submitted. Likewise, although Petitioner apparently got some inspection certificate, that certificate is not in evidence. There is no record evidence as to what it covered. It is not reasonable to infer or guess that it covered four loads on four trucks on three dates or that there is any way to calculate from it that the only bad melons were Petitioner's melons and not those mixed in from another farm on June 14, 1994. See FOF 19-20. 8-15 Rejected as not proven. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s PFOF: None filed COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Favuzza, President Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. Post Office Box 1682 Auburndale, Florida 33823 Tom Morton Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. Post Office Box 94-5010 Maitland, Florida 32794-5010 L. C. Stevenson 333 NW 46th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34482 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners own and operate a farm in St. Johns County, Florida. During the 1991 potato-growing season, they grew atlantic chipping potatoes on their 400-acre farm, as well as on approximately 30 acres leased from another party by their daughter and son-in-law. The Petitioners' business is known as Pacetti Farms. Rubin is an Illinois corporation licensed to do business in Florida as a broker or dealer in agricultural products. Rubin customarily purchases potatoes from growers throughout the country at the appropriate season for resale, typically to various potato chip manufacturing companies. Mr. Rubin appeared at the hearing and testified on behalf of Rubin and as an adverse witness on behalf of the Petitioners. Rubin is licensed and bonded with a surety bond from Continental in accordance with the statutory authority cited below, enforced and regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department"). On December 22, 1990, the Petitioners and Rubin entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase of 50,000 CWT of Florida atlantic chipping potatoes. That contract is in evidence as Exhibit 3 and is also known as the "set price contract". The contract called for shipment of the potatoes at a stated price of $6.35 per CWT, although the parties have stipulated and agreed that the actual contract price was intended as $6.00 per CWT. That figure is not in dispute in this proceeding. Shipment was to be made during the harvesting season between the dates of April 27, 1991 and June 15, 1991. The contract contained an escape clause or exception for "acts of God", with an explanatory parenthetic clause indicating that that was intended to mean circumstances beyond the control of the parties, such as flood, freeze, hail, etc. On or about February 15, 1991, severe cold weather struck the potato- growing area of St. Johns County, Florida. Temperatures ranged from 25 degrees to 19 degrees on that day, with a high wind blowing and very dry conditions. This resulted in soil being blown away from the newly-set potatoes under very cold temperatures. Because of this, the Petitioners had to work with tractors and cultivators far into the night to turn the blown-away soil back into the potato "sets". The Petitioners feared that this would cause some "dry eyes" and, therefore, lowered potato plant and potato production. In fact, however, upon observing the maturing plants during April of 1991, it appeared that the Petitioners would have a healthy, normal crop. The prior year the Petitioners had grown 133,000 CWT of potatoes on their 400 acres (excluding the Kirkers' 30 acres). With this background of an apparently-healthy crop in mind, the Petitioners were approached by Rubin on April 25, 1991 and negotiations ensued which resulted in the sale and purchase from Petitioners to Rubin of six additional loads of potatoes at the open market price of $19.50 per CWT. The six additional loads were in addition to the 50,000 CWT of potatoes agreed upon in the main contract entered into on December 22, 1990. This separate oral agreement for the six loads of potatoes at the market price of $19.50 per CWT was entered into prior to the Petitioners initiating delivery under the terms of the written contract of December 22, 1990. The parties thus agreed for the sale and purchase of six loads of potatoes at that market price to be delivered on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the following week, April 29th, April 30th, and May 1, 1991. Part of the consideration for that oral contract was the Petitioners' ability to furnish the six truckloads of potatoes on short notice, on the dates that Rubin required them. In other words, Rubin needed them in a hurry; and it was apparently worth $19.50 per CWT for him to get the potatoes delivered immediately on the dates requested. In the process of negotiating this oral contract, the Petitioners assured Rubin that he would have sufficient potatoes to meet his 50,000 CWT obligation under the written contract of December 22, 1990. This was not a misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioners, at this time, because the Petitioners, in good faith, believed they would be able to meet the 50,000 CWT set price contract and the oral contract for six additional truckloads, because of their belief concerning their crop estimate. This belief was based upon their observance of an apparently healthy crop and their knowledge that on their 400 acres, the year before, they had grown 133,000 CWT, as well as upon their knowledge that a normal crop estimate for the entire 430 acres at this location, under all of the prevailing circumstances, was 120,400 CWT. In fact, the Petitioners only contracted for 116,650 CWT of potatoes which, based upon a reasonable and appropriate crop estimate for this site and circumstances, would have allowed them to meet all their contracts, including the 50,000 CWT contract between the Petitioners and Rubin, although not all of the market sales for the Kirkers. After having thus assured Mr. Rubin that they could meet the contract of December 22, 1990 and still perform the oral contract for the six truckloads at market price, the Petitioners proceeded to carry out that oral agreement. It was a separate and distinct contract from the written contract dated December 22, 1990. Under the separate oral contract, they delivered the six truckloads of potatoes requested by Rubin. Rubin received them and paid $19.50 per CWT for them. On May 2, 1990, the Petitioners began delivering potatoes to Rubin under the terms and conditions of the written contract of December 22, 1990 and continued the deliveries throughout the remainder of the harvesting season. The first was shipped from Pacetti Farms on May 2, 1991 and the last load delivered to Rubin on that contract was shipped on June 1, 1991. During the 1991 growing and harvesting season, the area, including St. Johns County, experienced substantial crop damage due to excessive frost, rain, hail, and wind, which occurred during February of 1991 and then after April 25, 1991, with particular regard to excessive rainfall in May of 1991. This resulted in the area being declared an agricultural disaster area by the United States Department of Agriculture for that growing season. The Petitioners suffered damage to their crop as a result of these elements in February of 1991, as described above, and by excessive rainfall during May of 1991. Excessive rainfall caused root damage to their crop, which resulted in a lowered yield even though the plants viewed above ground appeared to be normal. This was aggravated by the fact that the Petitioners and other growers were legally unable to use the pesticide "Temik", for control of nematodes, during that growing season. Because of the nature of the crop involved, which grows underground, the potato yield is difficult to estimate at any given point in harvesting. The exact nature and extent of damage caused by weather conditions to a single crop is hard to estimate in advance. This difficulty is further compounded by differing soil types and climate conditions present within a particular growing area, especially with regard to farmers such as the Petitioners, who have their crops spread over multiple fields and farms. In mid-May of 1991, the Petitioners realized that there would be a crop shortage. The crop was damaged due to the weather-related factors mentioned above. The Petitioners notified Rubin that they expected their potato crop to fall short of expectations and that they would probably be unable to completely fill the contract with Rubin for the entire 50,000 CWT contracted for on December 22, 1990. In the meantime, before the 1991 planting season began, the Petitioners and Renee and Keith Kirker had entered into an agreement, whereby the Kirkers initiated their own farming operation on 30 acres of potato-growing land. The Kirkers leased that acreage from Diane Ross and received operating assistance from the Petitioners in the form of advances of all their operating costs, pursuant to an agreement between the Petitioners and the Kirkers, whereby the Petitioners would be repaid the estimated production costs for that 30-acre crop in the amount of $1,776.85 per acre, upon the sale of those 30 acres of potatoes. Potatoes are planted and harvested in the same sequence. Since the Petitioners assisted the Kirkers in planting their potatoes prior to the planting and completion of their own fields, the Petitioners borrowed some of the Kirkers' potatoes to fill their own contracts because those potatoes matured earlier, with the understanding that the Kirkers would be repaid in kind from the Petitioners' own fields during the remainder of the harvesting season. This is a common practice according to Ronald Brown, who testified for the Petitioners as an expert witness on farming practices. However, after the heavy rains in May of 1991, the Petitioners discovered that it would be necessary, in their view, to retain a portion of their last acreage in order to have potatoes to pay back the Kirkers for the potatoes borrowed. These potatoes would be sold by the Petitioners at market price, as agreed with the Kirkers. Upon discovering that their crop would not meet their contract obligations, the Petitioners attempted to prorate their remaining potatoes between their remaining contract customers in what they considered a fair and reasonable manner. On behalf of the Kirkers, the potatoes allocated for repayment to them were offered to Rubin, who, through its President, Mr. Rubin, declined to purchase them at the market price at which they were offered (higher than the contract price). The Petitioners' expert, Ronald Brown, established that, based upon accepted growers practices and his experience in the Hastings area, the Petitioners should have anticipated the yield for their 1991 crop at no more than 280 CWT per acre for the Petitioners' 430 acres (30 acres of which was the Kirkers' land). It is customary farming practice in the area, according to Brown, to enter into contracts for no more than 80% of the maximum anticipated yield of potatoes. The anticipated yield on the entire 430 acres of the Petitioners' and the Kirkers' land was, therefore, 120,400 CWT of potatoes. The principle of contracting no more than 80% of a maximum anticipated yield is designed to protect contracting parties in the event a smaller than anticipated yield occurs. A 280 CWT per acre yield is the generally-accepted yield amount under good growing conditions, according to Mr. Brown. The year before, the Petitioners had produced a total yield of 133,000 CWT on only 400 acres. The Petitioners entered into a total of six separate contracts for delivery of a total of 116,650 CWT of potatoes out of a reasonably anticipated maximum yield for the 430 acres of only 120,400 CWT. Thus, the Petitioners contracted 97% of the customary, accepted, anticipated maximum yield for the 430 acres for 1991. Thirty (30) of those acres, however, represent the potatoes which the Petitioners were obligated to the Kirkers to sell on their behalf at market price, rather than contract price. In spite of the fact that the Petitioners contracted 97% of the accepted, projected crop yield for 430 acres, the Petitioners, in fact, produced 117,000 CWT (approximate) on those 430 acres. Therefore, had they not diverted a certain amount of the crop to open market sales, they could have met their 116,650 CWT contractual obligations to the six contracting parties, including Rubin. It is also true, however, that that 117,000 CWT actual yield included the 30 acres of potatoes which the Petitioners were separately obligated to sell at open market price to repay the Kirkers. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioners had contracted 97% of the commonly-accepted, projected maximum yield, the Petitioners diverted 10,301.6 CWT of the 1991 crop on the entire 430 acres from contract sales to open market sales at much higher prices. Of those open market sales, 2,789.5 CWT were sold at market price after the last contract sales were made to Rubin. Had the Petitioners sold the entire 10,301.6 CWT of potatoes on contract, instead of at open market, all of the Petitioners' contractual requirements could have been met, including the contract with Rubin, although they would not then have been able to meet their obligations to the Kirkers. Based upon the above Findings of Fact supported by competent evidence, it is found that the preponderant evidence in this case does not support the Petitioners' contention that the Petitioners were unable to fulfill their contract obligation to Rubin due to an act of God. Although it is true that the Petitioners established that poor weather conditions, coupled with the absence of the ability to use the pesticide "Temik", had a deleterious effect on their crop production. The record shows that in spite of this, the Petitioners had the ability to fulfill their contract with Rubin if only approximately 5,000 CWT of the 10,301.6 CWT of potatoes sold on the open market had instead been allocated to the Petitioners' contract with Rubin to fill out the difference between the approximately 45,000 CWT honored under the contract and the contractual obligation to supply 50,000 CWT. The Petitioners produced on their own 400 acres 108,000 CWT. The remainder of the 117,582.5 CWT of potatoes from the total crop represented the potatoes grown on the Kirkers' 30 acres. Thus, the Kirkers' land produced approximately 8,600 CWT. The Petitioners supplied approximately 3,000 CWT under the separate, oral contract at market price and which were delivered to Rubin on April 29th, 30th, and May 1st (six loads at approximately 500 CWT per load). Then, the Petitioners sold the remainder of the total of 10,301.6 CWT of the entire Pacetti/Kirker crop or approximately 7,301.6 CWT on open market sales to others. The remainder of the 108,000 CWT grown on the Petitioners' own 400 acres, not sold to Rubin under the contract of December 22, 1990 or under the oral contract of April 25, 1991 (the six loads at market), were contracted out to other buyers. The ultimate effect of these contracts was that the Petitioners had contracted for 116,650 CWT. Thus, the Petitioners had imprudently contracted approximately 97% of the accepted, projected crop yield of 120,400 CWT, knowing that they were obligated to sell the Kirkers 8,600 or so CWT at market price and not on contract. Thus, the Petitioners clearly over- contracted the crop yield which they reasonably should have expected on the total 430 acres under the generally-accepted method of calculation of crop yield, under good growing conditions, of 280 CWT per acre, established by expert witness, Brown. This over-contracting practice, together with selling an excess amount of potatoes at market price (over and above those sold at market by the separate, oral contract with Rubin at the initial part of the harvesting season), is what actually prevented the Petitioners from fulfilling Rubin's contract of 50,000 CWT, rather than an act of God, predetermined condition for claiming impossibility of performance on that contract due to the above- described weather conditions. Even though the Petitioners were obligated to sell the Kirkers' entire 30 acres of yield, approximately 8,600 CWT, at market price, the Petitioners would still have had enough potatoes, even with their less-than-expected yield of 108,000 CWT represented by their own 400 acres, to have filled out the Rubin contract if they had not contracted out so many potatoes to other contracting buyers and had not sold as many potatoes at market price off contract as, indeed, they sold. Since the act of God condition is not what prevented the Petitioners from filling the written contract with Rubin for 50,000 CWT, it is clear that the Petitioners thus breached that contract. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the written contract with Rubin was entered into before any of the other contracts for the potato crop in question. The two contracts with Rubin are, however, separate contracts. The Petitioners established that there was a separate oral agreement entered into on April 25th between the Petitioners and Rubin and that the consideration flowing from the Petitioners to Mr. Rubin was that he needed the six loads of potatoes on short notice delivered on specific dates, April 29th, 30th, and May 1st, for which he was willing, therefore, to pay the $19.50 market price, knowing that it was for other potatoes that he contracted at $6.00. The Petitioners performed by providing the loads of potatoes when he wanted them and he paid for them in full. Thus, that contract was executed by consideration passing from each party to the other, and the contract was completed. The written contract with Rubin dated December 22, 1990 for the 50,000 CWT was the contract which the Petitioners breached for the above-found reasons. Rubin would, therefore, be entitled to damages for that breach based upon the facts proven in this case. There is no counterclaim or other action pending in this forum by Rubin against the Petitioners, however. Consequently, any damages proven by the breach of the written contract can only, at best, be applied against the amount due and owing the Petitioners for the billed, but unpaid, loads; that is, against the amount in controversy of $40,015.20. Rubin, however, has not produced any evidence to show what his damages might be. The record establishes, as found above, that, of the 48,361 CWT of potatoes delivered to Rubin, approximately 3,000 of which were delivered under the separate oral contract for six loads, Rubin only received approximately 45,000 CWT under the 50,000 CWT written contract. Thus, Rubin would appear to be entitled to damages caused by failing to get the last approximately 5,000 CWT of potatoes. The record, however, does not establish what those damages might be because it is not established whether Rubin had to purchase potatoes from another source at a higher price to meet the remainder of the 50,000 CWT amount, or, conversely, whether Rubin was able to purchase them from another source at a lower price than the $6.00 per CWT contract price, so that Rubin would actually benefit by the Petitioners' breach of that contract. Neither does the record reflect another possible scenario whereby Rubin might have simply accepted the approximate 5,000 CWT shortage and simply lost customers and potential profits represented by that amount of potatoes, or, finally, whether he simply did not purchase the shortage of 5,000 CWT from another source and had no missed sales for that amount of potatoes anyway and, therefore, no loss and no damage. The record simply does not reflect what Rubin's damages might have been because of the shortage under the written contract deliveries. In any event, the record evidence establishes that the oral contract was fully performed, with consideration flowing to each of the parties and that those potatoes were fully paid for at the market price. Then, the Petitioners delivered the written contract loads at $6.00 per CWT to Rubin represented by the claimed $40,015.00. That remains unpaid by Rubin. Rubin is obligated to pay that amount because Rubin was obligated to, and received those potatoes at the $6.00 contract price. Rubin would then appear to be entitled to claim damages if, indeed, any were suffered, for the breach of that written contract by the Petitioners' failure to supply the last (approximate) 5,000 CWT due Rubin under that contract. That resolution of their dispute, however, cannot be performed in this forum because of insufficient evidence, as delineated above, and remains to be resolved by another action by Rubin in another forum.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondents, Jack Rubin & Son, Inc. and Continental Casualty Co., Inc. be found jointly and severally liable for payment of $40,015.20 to the Petitioners for potatoes delivered to the Respondent, Jack Rubin & Son, Inc., for which payment has not yet been made. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-548A Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter because the evidence establishes that 30 acres of potatoes belonged to the Kirkers even though Pacetti Farms was responsible for all operations with regard to planting and harvesting those 30 acres, furnishing costs, operational expertise, equipment and labor as an advance against the Kirkers' crop sale. 2-5. Accepted, except that it is not found that the entire 430 acres of potatoes were the Petitioners' potatoes. 30 acres of potatoes belonged to the Kirkers. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence, to the extent that the 97% of the accepted projected crop yield contracted for by the Petitioners represents an inclusion of the 30 acres of the Kirkers' potatoes in that percentage of crop yield projection. This is erroneous because the 30 acres were the Kirkers' potatoes which the Petitioners were handling for them. Accepted in concept, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 John Michael Traynor, Esquire Charles E. Pellicer, Esquire 28 Cordova Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 C. Holt Smith, III, Esquire 3100 University Boulevard So. Suite 101 Jacksonville, FL 32016
