Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and at the subsequent deposition, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioners were producers of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1983). At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Sales was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1983), issued license No. 207 by the Department and bonded by Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast (Hartford) in the sum of $20,000 - Bond No. RN 4429948. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Hartford was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes (1983). On June 11, 1985 Respondent Sales, through its agent William C. Summers (Summers), contracted with Petitioners to load several loads of watermelons on trucks furnished by Respondent Sales at Petitioners' watermelon field. Petitioner agreed with Summers to load a good quality watermelon ranging in weight from seventeen (17) pounds and up, with an occasional watermelon weighing less than seventeen (17) pounds. The price agreed upon was $0.03 per pound with the sale being final upon loading, weighing and acceptance by Summers. Before loading any watermelons, Summers along with Petitioners Shivers inspected the field of watermelons for size and quality and to estimate how many watermelons were available for shipment. On June 11, 1985 Petitioners began loading the first load of watermelons the only load in dispute, in accordance with the agreement. Summers was present on several occasions, for periods of approximately thirty (30) minutes each time, during the time of loading and on occasions would instruct Petitioner Sullivan who was packing, to put watermelons, both large and small which Sullivan had rejected, back on the truck for shipment. Petitioner finished loading the first load of watermelons on June 11, 1985 which was weighed and accepted and paid for by Summers on June 12, 1985. The net weight was 43,260 pounds for a total amount of $1,297.80. On June 12, 1985, Summers issued a check jointly to Petitioners on Respondent Sales' checking account which Summers signed for the sum of $1,297.80 but later "stopped for payment" on this check and Respondent Sales has since refused to pay Petitioners this amount. Although Sullivan advised Summers that a range in weight of 17 pounds and up was too wide for a load of watermelons to be classified as medium, Summers advised Sullivan to load watermelons weighing 17 pounds and up. After Petitioners started loading the second load, Summers instructed Sullivan to only pack watermelons ranging in weight from 17 to 24 pounds which Sullivan did and Petitioners were paid for this second load without incident. The evidence was insufficient to prove that the watermelons in question had been rejected at destination due to the wide range of weights or for any other reason. 13, The evidence is clear that Summers was acting for Respondent Sales and had authority to purchase and accept the watermelons in dispute. The only reason Respondent Sales' refused to pay was the alleged nonconformance as to size.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Sales be ordered to pay to the Petitioners the sum of $1,297.80. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Sales fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then Respondent Hartford be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 13th day of March 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight, Chief License and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry McDavid, Esquire 200 North Marion Street Lake City, Florida 32055 Steve Shiver and Jody Sullivan Route 1, 8ox 474 Mayo, Florida 32066 A. J. Sales Company Post Office Box 7798 Orlando, Florida 32854 Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact In the summer of 1986, petitioner, Leo R. Fleming, as the agent for a Mr. Griffin, entered into an agreement with Jimmy Davis, representing D & M Pecan Company, to sell an unspecified amount of watermelons to D & M at the "ground" price which was to be determined daily. The parties also agreed to "joint" the melons, meaning that D & M and Mr. Griffin would split whatever profit or loss was made on the sale of the watermelons. Under the terms of the agreement D & M supplied the trucks and petitioner was responsible for harvesting and loading the melons on the trucks. Fifteen loads of watermelons were loaded and sold to D & M between June 28 and July 2, 1986. On June 28, 1986, D & M paid petitioner $3,000 as an advance on the watermelons so that the field crew could be paid. On June 30, 1986, D & M paid $5,000 and on July 2, 1986, D & M paid $3,000. None of the monies paid to petitioner between June 28 and July 2 were for specific loads or lots of melons, but were advances to be credited against the total amount that was ultimately owed to petitioner. From the first day of loading, June 28, 1986, D & M experienced problems with the melons loaded by petitioner. Mr. Davis would call petitioner the night before the loading to advise him as to the type and size of melon that was to be put on each truck to be loaded the following day. However, petitioner would get the orders confused, which resulted in the trucks being loaded with a different size and type of watermelon than was ordered. D & M usually did not discover the problem until the trucks reached their destination. On a few occasions, the discrepancies were discovered when petitioner called back in after the trucks had left the field to report the amount of melons put on each truck. In any event, the failure to load the right melons on the trucks caused D & M to have to find other buyers and reroute the trucks or reduce the price of the melons delivered. On July 12, 1986, petitioner and Mr. Davis met in Cordele, Georgia, for the purpose of determining the amount owed by D & M for the watermelons. Petitioner brought typed invoices with him which reflected the type of watermelon, the number of pounds shipped, and ground price per pound for each lot or load. However, due to the problems with the wrong melons being loaded, the parties agreed to reduce the price per pound on those loads which had not been loaded as ordered. The adjusted price agreed upon was written on the original invoices and the typed price was marked through. No adjustment was made for the lots that were loaded properly. Lot 621 was not included in the negotiations because petitioner did not present an invoice for that lot and neither party at that time knew what had happened to that truck. However, the parties did agree to settle the other 14 loads for a total price of $25,783.60. (See Appendix A which lists the invoiced price and negotiated price per load.) D & M deducted $10,000 from that total for the advances that had been made and gave petitioner a check for $15,783.60. 1/ The stamp marks on the back of the check reveal that the check was deposited by petitioner on or before July 14, 1986. On July 15, 1986, petitioner wrote a check to the grower for the watermelons. The amount of the check was based on the negotiated price minus petitioner's commission and the cost of the harvesters. This amount is reflected on the original invoices. (P.Ex.1) However, Mr. Griffin did not accept the changes in the price and insisted upon payment from petitioner based on the original invoiced amount. Petitioner then paid Mr. Griffin based on the original invoiced amount "for keeping him from going to the PACA." (T-30) Thereafter, on August 6, 1986, petitioner sent D & M a statement reflecting a balance due based on the original invoiced amounts. From thee evidence presented, it is clear that on July 12, 1986, the parties reached an agreement concerning the full amount to be paid for all the loads of watermelons purchased by D & M except for the load labelled Lot No. 621. D & M admits that it owes petitioner for Lot No. 621, but it contends that it only owes $1,898.40 for that load, whereas the invoice indicates that $2,133.90 is owed. Mr. Davis explained that D & M should not have to pay $2,133.90 for that load because that was the total amount it was able to get for the load. In other words, if D & M paid the full invoiced amount, it would not make a profit. Nevertheless, the original agreement of the parties was that D & M would pay ground price for the melons. D & M paid full invoice price on the melons that were correctly loaded and paid an agreed upon adjusted price for the melons that were not loaded as ordered. D & M failed to present any evidence establishing that Lot No. 621 consisted of melons that were not of the type and size ordered. Therefore, D & M owes petitioner $2,133.90 for Lot 621.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture directing respondent to pay petitioner the sum of $2,133.90 within 15 days after the final order is entered. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent owes Petitioner $2,377.20 as alleged in the complaint filed by Petitioner in July 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Bigham Hide Company, Inc. (Petitioner), is a watermelon grower in Coleman and Lake Panasoffkee, Florida. Respondent, Florida-Georgia Produce, Inc. (Respondent), is a licensed dealer in agricultural products having been issued License Number 7666 by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). Respondent has posted a bond in the amount of $30,000.00 written by Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company, as surety, to assure proper accounting and payment to producers such as Petitioner. In a complaint filed with the Department in July 1997, Petitioner alleged that he entered into an agreement with Bobby Patton (Patton) on behalf of Respondent to sell one truckload of "pee wee" watermelons. Under that agreement, Respondent agreed to pay seven cents per pound for the watermelons, and it would advance Petitioner $700.00 to cover the labor costs associated with loading the truck. The remainder would be paid upon final delivery. The complaint goes on to allege that Petitioner subsequently learned that there was "some problem" with the delivered produce. After Respondent inspected Petitioner's field to verify the quality of the crop, Petitioner was told that Respondent would "fight the fight" to get the shipment accepted. Since that time, however, the complaint alleges that Petitioner did not receive payment, an accounting of the transaction, an inspection report, or any further explanation. Accordingly, Petitioner filed this complaint seeking $3,077.20, less the $700.00 advance, or a total of $2,377.20. In its answer, Respondent has alleged that it actually received a truckload of "old diseased watermelons that had been lying in the field or on [the] field truck for a week," and the receiver refused to accept the load. Since it received nothing for the shipment, Respondent contends it is owed $700.00 for the money advanced to Petitioner. The parties agree that in late May 1997, Petitioner was contacted by Bobby Patton, who was representing Respondent, regarding the sale of small size watermelons. Patton offered to buy one truckload of "pee wee" watermelons at a price of seven cents per pound, to be paid after delivery to the receiver. Patton also agreed to advance Petitioner $700.00 to cover his loading costs. Petitioner agreed to these terms, and the truck was loaded from his field on June 3, 1997. The net weight of the loaded produce was 43,960 pounds. The vehicle's tag number was recorded on the loading slip as "AH 39099" from the province of Quebec, Canada. There is no evidence that the crop was diseased when it was loaded, or that it had been picked and lying in the field for several days before being loaded, as suggested in Respondent's answer to the complaint. The shipment was destined for Ontario, Canada. On or about June 5, 1997, the product was delivered to the customer, Direct Produce, Inc., in Etobicoke, Ontario. Because of a perceived lack of quality, the buyer refused to accept the load. Respondent immediately requested a government inspection which was performed on June 6, 1997. The results of that inspection are found in Respondent's Exhibit 3. It reveals that 1 percent of the load was decayed, 3 percent were bruised, 6 percent had Anthrocnose (belly rot), and 75 percent had "yellow internal discolouration." In addition, a composite sample reflected that 20 percent had "Whitish Stracked Flesh" while 5 percent had "Hollow Heart." In other words, virtually the entire shipment was tainted with defects or disease. The report also reflected that the net weight of the shipment was 44,500 pounds, and the tag number of the vehicle was "ALP 390999." The weight and tag number were slightly different from those recorded on the loading slip at Petitioner's field. After learning of the results of the inspection, Respondent's president, James B. Oglesby, immediately contacted Petitioner's president, Greg Bigham, and requested an inspection of Bigham's field to verify the quality of watermelons. During the inspection, Oglesby did not find any signs of belly rot or other problems similar to those noted in the government inspection. If there had been any incidence of belly rot in Petitioner's field, it would have been present in other unpicked watermelons. At the end of his inspection, Oglesby told Petitioner that he would "fight the fight" to get the shipment delivered and sold. Oglesby eventually found a buyer who would accept the shipment as feed for cattle. The buyer agreed to pay the freight charges for hauling the watermelons to Canada but nothing more. Therefore, Respondent was not paid for the load. Petitioner was led to believe that he would receive payment and paperwork, including the inspection report, within a few days. When he did not receive any documentation, payment, or further explanation within a reasonable period of time, he filed this complaint. It would be highly unlikely that a farmer would have one completely bad load from a field without the same problems being present in other loads shipped from the field at the same time. Petitioner presented uncontroverted testimony that no other shipments from that field during the same time period were rejected or had similar problems. In addition, it was established that poor ventilation on the truck, or leaving the loaded truck unprotected in the sun, could be causes of the crop being spoiled or damaged before it was delivered to Canada. Finally, at hearing, Respondent suggested that Bigham may have shown him a different field than the one from which his load was picked. However, this assertion has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner $2,377.20. In the event payment is not timely made, the surety should be responsible for the indebtedness. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 6th of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Terry T. Neal, Esquire Post Office Box 490327 Leesburge, Florida 34749-0327 James B. Oglesby Post Office Box 6214 Lakeland, Florida 33807 Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company 4311 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
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 The Respondents, F. H. Dicks, III; F. H. Dicks, IV; and F. H. Dicks Company, are wholesale dealers in watermelons which they purchase and sell interstate. The Respondents' agents during the 1991 melon season in the Lake City area were Harold Harmon and his son, Tommy Harmon. The Harmons had purchased watermelons in the Lake City area for several year prior to 1991, and the Petitioner had sold melons to them in previous seasons. The terms of purchase in these prior transactions had always been Freight on Board (FOB) the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. The terms of purchase of the melons sold by Petitioner to the Respondents prior to the loads in question had been FOB the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. One of the Harmons would inspect the load being purchased during the loading and at the scale when the truck was weighed out. After this inspection, the melons accepted by Harmon were Respondents'. Price would vary over the season, but price was agree upon before the melons were loaded. Settlement had always been prompt, and the Harmons enjoyed the confidence of the local farmers. In June 1991, the Harmons left the Lake City area. There were still melons being picked in the area, and Harold Harmon advised the Petitioner that Jim would be handling their business. On June 30, 1991, load F 267 of 48,600 pounds of watermelons was sold to the Respondents through their agent, Jim, for 4 per pound. Fifteen thousand pounds of this load of melons was purchased by Food Lion in Salisbury, NC, for $1,450, and the remaining 33,600 pounds were refused. That portion which was refused was transported back to Respondents' workplace, and 33,600 pounds of the melons were sold at 3 per pound, or $1,008. The Respondents received a total of $2,458 for load F 267, and had transportation cost of $1,202.50 on this load. On July 1, 1991, load F 269 of 43,710 pounds of watermelons was sold to the Respondent through his agent, Jim, for 4 per pound. This load was to be shipped to Rich Food, Richmond, VA. An annotation on the Bill of Laden indicates the load was returned to Respondent and subsequently dumped. The load was not inspected after refusal, and there is no evidence that the load did not grade to standard. Petitioner's testimony is uncontroverted, and there is no indication that the terms for these two loads were different from the earlier transactions between Petitioner and Respondent, that is, FOB the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. Under the terms of sale, FOB purchaser's truck at seller's field, the Respondent bore the costs of transportation and the risk of refusal of the produce. Respondent's recourse was against the purchaser who refused delivery. If there was a problem with the grade, the Respondents also bore the risk of loss on sales which they made and which were rejected. The Petitioner is entitled to his full purchase price on both loads: $1,748.40 on F 269 and $1,944 on F 267.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: Respondents be given 30 days to settle with the Petitioner in the amount of $3,692.40, and the Petitioner be paid $3,692.40 from Respondents' agricultural bond if the account is not settled. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 6th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry McDavid, Esquire 128 South Hernando Street Lake City, FL 32055 F. H. Dicks, III c/o F. H. Dicks Company P.O. Box 175 Barnwell, SC 29812 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 South Carolina Insurance Company Legal Department 1501 Lady Street Columbia, SC 29202 Victoria I. Freeman Seibels Bruce Insurance Companies Post Office Box One Columbia, SC 29202 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue Whether the Respondent owes the Petitioner money for watermelons purchased from Petitioner. The factual issues are whether the contract between the parties limited the warrantee of merchantability, and whether melons were of good quality on arrival, and, if not, who was responsible for the failure to meet quality standards.
Findings Of Fact During the 1996 season, the Petitioner contracted with Respondent to sell several loads of watermelons. The claim identified the various loads of melons by date and weight as follows: DATE POUNDS PRICE CLAIM 6/23 44,010 $.04 $1760 6/25 40,300 $.04 $1612 6/25 40,260 $.04 $1610 6/25 41,640 $.04 $1666 6/26 15,750 $.04 $ 600 The Respondent used file numbers to identify the loads which were purchased from Petitioner. These were co-related with the Petitioner’s information by date. The Respondent reduced the amount remitted to the Petitioner on the following loads due to shrinkage (loss of weight during transit) and loss of decayed melons on file number 96057. The Petitioner stated at hearing that, while he had added them to the claim, the differences between his claims and Respondent’s accounting were within the shrinkage and loss limits. The Respondent owed the Petitioner $4,832 on the following: DATE FILE NO. WEIGHT PAID 6/23 96055 43,659 $1746 6/25 96056 39,240 $1570 6/25 96057 38,080 $1516 The controversy between the parties centered upon file numbers 96058 and 96065. Both parties agree regarding the weight of the melons shipped and the price per pound. File number 96058 consisted of 41,640 pounds of melons sold at $.04 per pound. The shipment was sold to Provigo Distribution, Inc. on June 25, and the melons were to be Peewee sized melons (melons weighing 14-17 pounds). The Petitioner loaded the melons on a truck provided by Provigo, and Respondent did not have a person present to inspect the load when it was loaded. The Petitioner asserts that title to the melons transferred when they were loaded on the truck, and that Respondent was liable for the product thereafter. The Respondent acknowledges that it accepted title for the melons when loaded on the truck at the field, but that terms also provided that the melons would be of a specified size and would be of good quality upon delivery. There was no written contract limiting the warrantee of merchantability. Provigo refused acceptance of the melons because they were too big. The melons were around 21 pounds or small mediums (18-24 pounds). When the Respondent sought to sell the melons to another buyer, the buyer had the melons inspected, and 57 percent of the melons were rejected: 15 percent for sunburn, 7 percent for bruising, 10 percent for whitish pink flesh, and 25 percent as overripe. The Respondent introduced a copy of the documents showing the original sale price to Provigo, rejection, inspection and accounting upon resale. The Respondent had sold the melons related to file number 96058 to Provigo for $.06 a pound with Provigo paying the freight. The Respondent would have made $2498.40 on the sale to Provigo. Upon rejection, the Respondent was responsible to Provigo for the transportation costs ($.05 per pound) for the entire load or $2082. The Respondent obtained $613.84 from the sale of the melons after their rejection. File number 96065 related to a partial load which Petitioner had sold on June 26th to Respondent in response to Respondent’s request for Peewee size melons. Petitioner was only able to supply a partial load of 15,750 pounds. These were moved on June 26th from Florida to Georgia, where on June 27th, the truck was finished off with large melons from another farmer. The Respondent had an agent who was in Georgia where the melons were shipped immediately in order to add additional melons to the load. This agent had the authority to purchase melons and cull melons for Respondent, and was in contact with Respondent during the period the truck carrying Petitioner’s melons was waiting. The agent also knew the load was to be shipped to Canada for sale. Respondent’s agent in Georgia saw that the Peewees loaded from Petitioner were spotted, leaking, and decayed prior to loading the large melons. These melons were shipped to Canada at a cost of $.05 a pound for a total of $1138 where the Peewees from Respondent were rejected because of decay. Their condition was such that they could not be given away, and a disposal charge of $350 was charged to Respondent. The Respondent in rendering an accounting of the transaction to Petitioner charged Petitioner $1138 for the transportation of the 15,750 pounds of melons to Canada and $350 for their disposal.
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 the Petitioner a total of $2523 and providing Respondent a reasonable amount of time to produce proof of payment of this amount to Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 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 15th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bo Bass, President Bass Farms, Inc. 2829 Southwest SR 45 Newberry, FL 32669 H. Joseph Heidrich 260 Maitland Avenue, Number 1000 Atlamont Springs, FL 32701 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., is indebted to the Petitioner Raiford Dunn for agricultural products purchased by the Respondent from the Petitioner. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION By complaint filed with the Bureau of License and Bond, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, on October 7, 1986, and submitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 21, 1986, for hearing, the Petitioner seeks payment of a balance due on watermelons sold and delivered to Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., on June 17, 18, and 19, 1986. At the hearing the Petitioner and the representative for the Respondent Lapide both testified and both presented the testimony of other witnesses. The Petitioner and the Respondent Lapide also both offered exhibits which were received in evidence. Following the hearing, none of the parties ordered a transcript of the proceedings. Further, none of the parties have filed any post- hearing proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law as allowed by Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties stipulations, on the testimony at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence I make the following findings of fact. l. The Respondent Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., is a New York corporation. It is a licensed dealer in agricultural products, having been issued license number 1274. For the time period in question, Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., had a bond posted through Peerless Insurance Company in the amount of $50,000.00. The bond number was RG-30-44. The Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products, specifically watermelons. The Petitioner has been raising watermelons for approximately 25 years. The Petitioner knows Mr. Lawrence J. Lapide and has had business dealings with Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., on several occasions during the past 4 or 5 years. During 1986 the Petitioner sold three loads of watermelons to Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., prior to the four loads which are the subject of this case. (The parties do not have any disputes about the three earlier loads.) During June of 1986, Mr. Lawrence J. Lapide met with the Petitioner to discuss the purchase of watermelons. Mr. Lapide, acting on behalf of Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., agreed to buy four loads of watermelons. Mr. Lapide purchased 3 loads of small watermelons (referred to as "dinks") at 3 cents per pound and l load of medium watermelons at 5 cents per pound. When the watermelons were loaded and weighed, the totals were as follows: Pig # 676086 43,290 pounds x 3 cents $1,298.70 Pig # 677969 47,980 pounds x 3 cents $1,439.40 Pig # 676036 43,910 pounds x 3 cents $1,317.30 Pig # 677047 45,640 pounds x 5 cents $2,282.00 Thus, the total agreed price for the four loads of watermelons was $6,337.40. When the Petitioner and Mr. Lapide agreed to the sale of the four loads of watermelons, the terms of the sale included an understanding that the transaction was F.O.B. at Sumterville, Florida. The agreement between the parties included an understanding that Mr. Lapide would provide the trailers to haul the watermelons and Mr. Lapide would pay all transportation charges for the watermelons. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, payment for the watermelons was due "when they moved over the scale," i.e., as soon as the trucks were loaded and weighed. Finally, the evidence shows that the agreement between the parties was to the effect that title and risk of loss to the watermelons passed to the Respondent Lapide on shipment, with all remedies and rights for the Petitioner's breach reserved to the Respondent Lapide. The watermelons in question were loaded on June 17, 18, and 19, 1986, on trailers provided by Mr. Lapide. Pursuant to Mr. Lapide's request, as soon as each truck was loaded, the Petitioner called the transportation company to advise them that the melons were loaded and ready to be shipped. When the watermelons were loaded, they were in good marketable condition and if anthractnose rot was present on the watermelons, it was not visible at the time of loading. During the week of June 16, 1986, the Petitioner loaded watermelons for Mr. James Hill at the same time he was loading watermelons for the Respondent Lapide. The watermelons loaded for Mr. Hill came from the same fields as the watermelons loaded for the Respondent Lapide. Mr. Hill did not have any problems with the loads of watermelons he bought from the Petitioner during the week of June 16, 1986. Two of the loads of watermelons received by the Respondent Lapide were not inspected when received in New York. Those two loads contained saleable watermelons although an unspecified percentage of the watermelons in the two uninspected loads were unsaleable. The Respondent Lapide sold watermelons from the two uninspected loads. Two of the loads of watermelons received by the Respondent Lapide were inspected after they were received in New York. The inspections showed that one load contained anthractnose rot in various stages in 44 percent of the watermelons and that the other load contained anthractnose rot in various stages in 79 percent of the watermelons. The Respondent Lapide dumped the last two loads of watermelons. The Respondent Lapide has previously paid the Petitioner $1,500.00 of the amount due for the four loads of watermelons in question.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $4,837.40. It is further recommended that if the Respondent Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, :the Respondent Peerless Insurance Company then 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. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Harris, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc. 3 Willshire Court Freeport, New York 11236 Peerless Insurance Company 62 Maple Avenue Keene, New Hampshire 03431 Ted Helms, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Lawrence J. Marchbanks, Esquire MARCHBANKS & FEAN 4700 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 101 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Hon. Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Triple M Packing, Inc. (Triple M) is in the business of selling produce, particularly tomatoes from its principal business address of Post Office Box 1358, Quincy, Florida. The Respondent, Fair Chester Tomato Packers, Inc. (Fair Chester), is primarily engaged in the business of packaging, distributing and brokering tomatoes in the New York City metropolitan area. It purchases produce from various sellers around the country in tomato-producing areas for resale at markets in the New York City area. Since it is a licensed agricultural dealer, the Respondent is required under the pertinent provisions of Chapter 604, Florida Statutes, to file a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), designed to guarantee payment of any indebtedness to persons selling agricultural products to the bonded dealer to whom the dealer fails to make accounting and payment. Fair Chester has thus obtained a 50,000 surety bond which is underwritten by its Co-Respondent, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Hartford). During the 1984 growing season, the Petitioner sold certain shipments of tomatoes to the Respondent for a price of $12,276. Thereafter, curing middle-to-late 1984, the Respondent Fair Chester, found itself in straitened financial circumstances such that it was unable to pay its various trade creditors, including the Petitioner. In view of this, various creditors at the behest of a lawyer retained by Fair Chester, eventually entered into a composition agreement, whereby the unsecured trade creditors agreed to settle, release and discharge in full their claims against Fair Chester on the condition that each creditor signing that agreement be paid thirty-three and one-third percent of its claim. It was determined that the composition agreement would be operative if the trade creditors representing 95 percent or more in dollar amount of all unsecured debts accepted the terms and provisions of that composition agreement on or before November 13, 1984. All the Respondent's unsecured trade creditors were contacted and ultimately those representing more than 95 percent of the outstanding creditor claims against Respondent accepted the terms and provisions of the composition agreement by the deadline. A document indicating acceptance by the Petitioner was signed by one Robert Elliott, purportedly on behalf of the Petitioner, Triple M Packing, Inc. In this connection, by letter of November 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit 4) Attorney Howard of the firm of Glass and Howard, representing the Respondent, wrote each trade creditor advising them that the required acceptance by 95 percent of the creditors had been achieved, including the acceptance of the agreement signed and stamped "received November 8, 1984" by Robert Elliott, sales manager of Triple M. In conjunction with its letter of November 13, 1984, Glass and Howard transmitted Fair Chester's check for one-third of the indebtedness due Triple M or $4,092. The Petitioner's principal officer, its president, Kent Manley, who testified at hearing, acknowledged that he received that letter and check, but he retained it without depositing it or otherwise negotiating it. In the meantime, on October 29, 1984 a complaint was executed and filed by Triple M Packing, Inc. by its president, Kent Manley, alleging that $12,276 worth of tomatoes had been sold to Respondent on June 13, 1984 and that payment had not been received. The purported acceptance of the composition agreement executed by Robert Elliott, sales manager, was not executed until November 8, 1984 and the check for $4,092 in partial payment of the Triple M claim was not posted until November 13, 1984. Mr. Manley's testimony was unrefuted and established that indeed Mr. Elliott was a commissioned salesman for Triple M, was not an officer or director of the company and had no authority to bind the company by his execution of the composition of creditors agreement. Mr. Manley acted in a manner consistent with Elliott's status as a commissioned salesman without authority to bind the Petitioner corporation since, upon his receipt of the "one- third settlement" check with its accompanying letter, he did not negotiate it, but rather pursued his complaint before the Department. In fact, in response to the Department's letter of December 20, 1984 inquiring why the complaint was being prosecuted in view of the purported settlement agreement, Mr. Manley on behalf of Triple M Packing, Inc. by letter of December 28, 1984, responded to Mr. Bissett, of the Department, that he continued to hold the check and was not accepting it as a final settlement. Thus, in view of the fact that the complaint was filed and served before notice that 95 percent of the creditors had entered into the composition agreement and never withdrawn, in view of the fact that on the face of the complaint Robert C. Elliott is represented as a salesman indeed, for an entity known as "Garguilo, Inc.," and in view of the fact that Mr. Manley as president of Triple M, retained the check without negotiating it and availing himself of its proceeds, rather indicating to the Department his wish to pursue the complaint without accepting the check as settlement, it has not been established that the Respondent, Fair Chester, was ever the recipient of any representation by Manley, or any other officer or director of the Petitioner corporation, that it would accept and enter into the above-referenced composition of creditors agreement. It was not proven that Triple M Packing, Inc. nor Mr. Manley or any other officer and director either signed or executed the composition agreement or authorized its execution by Robert C. Elliott. Respondent's position that Mr. Manley and Triple M acquiesced in the execution of the settlement agreement by Elliott and the payment of the one-third settlement amount by the subject check has not been established, especially in view of the fact that the complaint was filed after Attorney Howard notified Triple M of Respondent's settlement offer and prior to notice to Triple M that the settlement agreement had been consummated by 95 percent of the creditors and prior to the sending of the subject check to Triple M. Mr. Manley then within a reasonable time thereafter, on December 28, 1984, affirmed his earlier position that the entire indebtedness was due and that the settlement had not been accepted.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That Fair Chester Tomato Packers, Inc. pay Triple M Packing Company, Inc. $12,276. In the event that principal fails to or is unable to pay that indebtedness, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company should pay that amount out of the surety bond posted with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Kent Manley, Jr. Post Office Box 1358 Quincy, Florida 32351 P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 16th day of September, Arthur Slavin, Esquire BLUM, HAIMOFF, GERSEN, LIPSON, GARLEY & NIEDERGANG 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Kight Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =========================================================== ======
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $10,258.98, or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and his 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 Brokerage. This cause is governed by the claims made in the amended complaint. (Exhibit P-13) That amended complaint sets out the parameters of the claimed amounts as follows: AGREED PRICE PAID PRICE DIFFERENCE CLAIMED 6-13-92 Inv.#573 45,429 lbs. Jub. melons @ .04/lb.$1,816.80 (paid on 41,720 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.08 1,107.72 950.46 157.26 6-14-92 Inv.#586 48,060 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,403.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.61 1,693.39 1,202.79 490.60 6-14-92 Inv.#587 50,610 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,530.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 10.12 1,820.38 1,304.28 516.10 6-15-92 Inv.#592 44,800 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,240.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.96 1,531.04 1,153.04 378.00 6-15-92 Inv.#593 46,340 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,317.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.27 1,607.73 1,144.33 463.40 6-16-92 Inv.#598 47,170 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,358.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.43 1,649.07 1,177.37 471.70 6-16-92 Inv.#607 48,320 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,416.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.66 1,706.34 1,223.14 483.20 6-17-92 Inv.#628 1/ 40,890 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,044.50 (no inv.# provided producer) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.18 1,336.32 .00 1,336.32 6-17-92 Inv.#626 36,690 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 1,834.50 (paid on 27,890 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 7.34 1,127.16 688.92 438.24 6-17-92 Inv.#627 37,300 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 1,865.00 (paid on 30,500 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 7.46 1,157.54 818.90 338.64 6-17-92 Inv.#642 43,350 lbs. Job. melons @ .05/lb. 2,167.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.67 1,458.83 1,025.33 433.50 6-18-92 Inv.#643 44,150 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,207.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.83 1,498.67 1,057.17 441.50 6-18-92 Inv.#644 45,060 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,253.00 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.01 1,543.99 .00 1,543.99 6-18-92 Inv.#646 43,180 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,159.00 (paid on 38,380 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.64 1,450.36 1,211.32 239.04 6-18-92 Inv.645 47,070 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,353.50 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.41 1,644.09 .00 1,644.09 6-19-92 Inv.#663 43,520 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,176.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.70 1,467.30 1,032.10 435.20 6-19-92 Inv.#685 44,820 Crim. melons lbs. @ .05/lb. 2,241.00 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.96 1,532.04 1,083.84 448.20 TOTAL DUE $10,258.98 The amended complaint admits that Respondent's deductions for advances and NWPB were appropriate on each load/invoice, and these are not in contention. The amended complaint admits that Respondent has already made the payments to Petitioners, which are indicated. It is only the claimed shortfall on each load that is at issue. At formal hearing, Petitioners discussed a load they claimed they had delivered to Respondent on 6-20-92. They had neither receipts, weight tickets, nor settlement sheets, (invoices) nor payment from Respondent on this load. This "lost load," as the parties described it, is not named in the amended complaint. Therefore, no findings of fact can be made thereon, due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 appears to apply to loads 560, 561, 562, and 563, all loads occurring on 6-11-92. That date and those load numbers also are not listed in the amended complaint. Accordingly, no findings of fact will be made with regard to loads 560, 561, 562 or 563, due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners delineated two theories of recovery as to the seventeen claims actually named in the amended complaint. Petitioners claimed the right to recover from Respondents due to Respondent dealer's failure to pay for all or some of the poundage delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer on the following loads: 6-13-92 #573, 6-17-92 #628, 6-17-92 #626, 6-17-92 #627, 6-18-92 #644, 6-18-92 #646, 6-18-92 #645, 6- 19-92 #685. Petitioners claim the right to recover from Respondents due to Respondent dealer's failure to pay per pound at the rate of one cent below the "wire price" per pound on the following loads: 6-14-92 #586, 6-14-92 #587, 6- 15-92 #592, 6-15-92 #593, 6-16-92 #598, 6-16-92 #607, 6-17-92 #642, 6-18-92 #643, and 6-19-92 #663. For 6-15-92 18-24 lb. average 4.50 - 5.00 cents, few 6.00 26-32 lb. average 4.50 - 5.00 cents, few 6.00 For 6-16-92 18-24 lb. average 5.00 - 6.00 cents 26-32 lb. average 5.00 - 6.00 cents For 6-17-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 cents, few higher and lower 26-32 lb. average 6.00 cents, few higher and lower For 6-18-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, "Wire prices" are printed in "spread" form. Evidence was presented (Composite Exhibit P-14), and the parties are agreed, that the following were the "wire prices" at certain times material. Otherwise, there is no evidence in this record concerning amounts or dates of "wire prices." mostly 6.00, few higher 26-32 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, mostly 6.00, few higher and lower For 6-19-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, mostly 6.00, few higher 26-32 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents mostly 6.00, few higher and lower Since no "wire prices" were proven up for the days involved in loads 586, and 587, Petitioners are not entitled to recover on their theory of entitlement for those loads. Upon the allegations of the amended complaint and the "wire prices" proven, it appears that Petitioners have already received payment from Respondent dealer at one cent (or better) below the proven low-end "wire price" on loads 592, 593, 598, and 607. Therefore, Petitioners are not entitled to recover on their theory of entitlement for those loads. Petitioners (grower-producers) believed that they had negotiated an oral contract with Respondent dealer to the effect that the dealer would pay Petitioners at the rate of one cent below the "wire price" per pound on those days that Respondent took delivery from them of their watermelons. Respondent testified contrariwise that although such an arrangement was discussed, the parties' final oral agreement was concluded in terms of an excellent quality of every melon, and after negotiations were completed, the dealer understood that the price he was to pay the producers was just the same price per pound he paid all his other producers on any given day. In determining the daily uniform price per pound, Respondent admitted that he used the "wire price" as a guideline, but never explained exactly how the "wire price" constituted a guideline. The Petitioners and Respondent dealer had dealt with one another over a period of years. In past years they had discussed what was to occur if any loads were refused, in whole or in part, by retail buyers at their ultimate destinations. Over the years, the parties had agreed that for loads involving a "small deduct," that is, a small amount of refused melons, Respondent had unilateral authority to informally agree to dump the bad melons or take whatever he could get for the load and pass on the monetary loss to Petitioners. Petitioners conceded that the discretion to take or not take such losses always had been entirely that of Respondent during the parties' several years of past dealing, and that before 1992, whenever an ultimate recipient had refused melons, the "deduct" had been "worked out" this way with no prior notice to Petitioners. In short, by Petitioners' own evidence, it appears that up until the loads at issue in 1992, Petitioners had always simply accepted the Respondent's calculations concerning refusals for quality without requiring proof by way of a federal inspection. Mr. Randal Roberts Sr. testified that in his opinion, any "deduct" over 300 pounds was not "small." However, no evidence defining an industry standard for the relative terms of "small deducts" or "large deducts" was introduced. In light of the parties' standard arrangement over the whole course of their business dealings, it is deemed that Respondent continued to be within his rights in 1992 to unilaterally decide which melons to pay Petitioners for and which melons not to pay Petitioners for where quality became an issue between himself and the ultimate recipients. Petitioners estimated that on a scale of one to ten, the melons they had delivered to Respondent dealer in 1992 were "about a seven" when they delivered them to him, even though Respondent's agents culled out the really bad melons. It may be inferred therefrom that the loads were no better and were probably in worse condition when they reached their ultimate destinations. Respondent testified that he had dumped all or part of the remaining loads in question or reduced the price per pound from that of the "wire price" due to the poor quality of the melons based on complaints or refusals by the recipients when the melons reached their ultimate destinations. These are loads 573, 628, 626, 627, 644, 646, 645, 685, 642, 643, and 663. Although Petitioners adamantly denied that they had ever agreed to rely on federal inspections to determine which melons were bad and which were good, Respondent had gotten federal inspection sheets (R-2) to support his decision to dump all or part of loads 628, 643, 645, 663, and 685. Respondent dealer introduced his business journal (R-3) to show that load 643 was "bad" and load 644 was "dumped" due to poor quality. Respondent dealer introduced his contemporaneous business journal (R- 3) to show that except for loads 607, 643, 644, 663, and 685 he had paid as much to Petitioners per pound as to anyone else on the respective days he had taken delivery. On those loads he had paid Petitioners less than some other producers whom he dealt with on those days, but contended that he had reduced the price per pound paid to Petitioners on those days on the basis of poor quality, too. Nonetheless, 607 was paid at least at one cent below the "wire price" (See Finding of Fact 14), 643 was shown bad by inspection, 644 was dumped in its entirety per the dealer's journal, and 663 and 685 were shown bad by inspection. Upon the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent was within the parameters of his standard dealings with Petitioners where he reduced the price per pound of loads 643 and 663 on the basis of quality, just as he was within his clear unilateral authority and discretion to dump or discard whole melons from loads 628, 644, 645, and 685. After accounting for the foregoing loads, that leaves only loads 573, 626, 627, and 646 left in issue as to poundage and only load 642, (for which Respondent paid 4 cents per pound instead of one cent below the "spread" of the "wire price" for that day) at issue as to price per pound. As to each of these loads, Respondent produced business records wherein he had made contemporaneous notations concerning the quality complaints and/or number of melons rejected by the ultimate recipients. (R-2) Respondent did not pay Petitioners anything on load 645 because of freight deductions and Respondent also made freight deductions on some other invoices. There is no evidence in this record regarding how the parties had negotiated who would bear the ultimate cost of the freight. However, the Petitioners have not proven any entitlement to recover these charges which Respondent advanced and paid. Likewise, Petitioners also have not set out any trail by which the undersigned can trace any mathematical errors on any loads/settlement sheets to the Respondent dealer over Petitioners. Under the parties' standard mode of doing business, Respondent had clear unilateral authority and discretion to dump or discard whole melons for quality and pay Petitioners nothing for the whole melons dumped or discarded in loads 573, 626, 627, and 646. Upon the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent was also within the parameters of his standard dealings with Petitioners in not paying full negotiated price per pound on load 642 where some lesser price per pound could be negotiated with the ultimate recipient as to quality.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order dismissing all named claims against Respondents. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 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 7th day of July, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1983) . At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Swaiff was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1); Florida Statutes (1983), issued license No. 1630 by the Department, and bonded by Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast (Hartford) in the sum of $25,000.00 Bond No. RN 4528454. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Hartford was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes (1983). The record is clear that Respondent Swain agreed to purchase a load of watermelons from Petitioner at an agreed upon price of $0.03 per pound, with payment "due on date of sale", to be loaded on a truck furnished by Respondent Swain through Elton Stone, Inc., a truck broker. Petitioner agreed to harvest and load the truck with a "good quality" or U.S. No. 1 grade watermelons subject to rejection on arrival at their destination if the watermelons were nonconforming for reasons attributable to the Petitioner. No evidence was presented with regard as to what Respondent Swain or Petitioner understood watermelons of "good quality" to mean and, likewise, no evidence was presented to show what standards a load of watermelons had to meet in order to be graded U.S. No. 1. Although Respondent Swain contends that he acted only as a sales agent, that is, he arranged the sale of the watermelons and made arrangements for a truck to deliver the watermelons; the evidence shows that the agreement between Petitioner and Respondent Swain was that title and risk of loss passed to Respondent Swain on shipment, with all remedies and rights for Petitioner's breach reserved to Respondent Swain. Petitioner sold other loads of watermelons to Respondent Swain during the 1985 watermelon season but only one (1) load is in dispute which is a load of watermelons weighing 4,8760 pounds at $0.03 per pound for a total amount of $1;462.80 which Respondent Swain has refused to pay. From June 19, 1985 through June 30, 1985, Petitioner harvested and sold nine t9) other loads of watermelons from the same field as the watermelons in dispute were harvested without any loss due to anthractnose rot or otherwise on arrival at their destination. The watermelons in dispute were loaded June 26, 1985 on a trailer with license number KY-T37-131 and billed to Charley Brothers Company; New Stanton; Pennsylvania by Respondent Swain's on his Invoice Number 061843 and delivered on June 28, 1985. Charley Brothers Company rejected the load and Respondent Swain called for an inspection which showed some anthractnose rot in the early stages in the front ten (10) feet of trailer with the remaining load showing no decay. The percentage of rot or decay is not-evident from the report since it is somewhat illegible and the inspector who prepared the report did not testify. 10 The evidence was insufficient to prove whether the trailer was vented or not vented. The testimony of those persons present during the loading of the watermelons in dispute was credible and shows that the watermelons were in good condition on June 26; 1985 when they were loaded and that if anthractnose rot was present on the watermelons it was not visible at the time of loading. Neither Respondent Swain nor his representative were present during the harvesting and loading of the watermelons. The evidence shows that Respondent Swain made numerous telephone calls in regard to this load of watermelons, some of those calls to Petitioner, but the evidence is insufficient to prove the content of those telephone conversations with Petitioner. The load was put on consignment to Felix and Sons Wholesale by Respondent Swain and he received a check in the sum of $500.00 as payment for the load of watermelons. Respondent Swain paid Elton Stone, Inc. $1,820.94 for freight resulting in a loss of $1,320.94 on the load of watermelons.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein; it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Swain be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $t,494.30. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Swain fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then Respondent Hartford be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21; Florida Statutes (1983) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee; Leon County; Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 28th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, F1orida 32301 L. J. Crawford Route 3, Box 269 Lake Butler, Florida 32059 Ron Weaver, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight; Chief License and Bond Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Dale M. Swain d/b/a Palm Fruit Shop 313 West Seminole Avenue Bushnell, Florida 33513
