The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed food service violations, and, if so, whether disciplinary action should be taken. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent did commit violations and should be subject to the fine described herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Respondent was licensed as a public food establishment in the State of Florida by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Department). Respondent's business address is 8084 North Davis Highway, No. A1, Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner's witness, Inspector Crowley, is employed by the Department as a senior sanitation safety specialist in Panama City Beach, Florida. He has worked for the Department for 12 years and has prior experience in the United States Air Force for 26 years, during which he also preformed public health inspections at food and lodging facilities. Inspector Crowley engages in continuing education on a regular basis and performs approximately 800 inspections a year. "Critical violations" are those that are likely to result in food-borne illness or environmental degradation. "Non-critical violations" are minor issues that are not classified as critical violations. Inspection reports are electronically prepared on a Personal Data Assistant by the inspector. On July 14, 2009, Inspector Crowley performed a routine food service inspection of Respondent at its location on North Davis Highway in Pensacola. During the inspection, Inspector Crowley prepared and signed an inspection report setting forth the violations he encountered during the inspection. On that same date, Inspector Crowley notified Respondent about the violations. Respondent's owner signed the inspection report. Also, Inspector Crowley made the owner aware that each violation noted during the inspection must be corrected by the next unannounced inspection. On December 14, 2009, Inspector Crowley performed a routine food service inspection of Respondent. During the inspection, Inspector Crowley prepared and signed an inspection report indicating that some of the violations noted on the July 14, 2009, inspection report had not been corrected. On that date, Inspector Crowley notified Respondent of the violations and the fact that he was recommending an administrative complaint. Respondent's owner signed the inspection report. The most serious violation was observed at both the July 14 and December 14 inspections. Inspector Crowley observed the handwash sink being used for purposes other than handwashing. This is a critical violation because handwashing is the best way to prevent food-borne illness within a public food service establishment. Mr. Wong testified that during both inspections a brush used for cleaning the sink had been left inside the handwash sink. Inspector Crowley observed the next most serious violation during the December 14 inspection, misrepresentation of food products. Imitation crab was advertised as genuine crab meat, and escolar was advertised as white tuna. This constitutes a critical violation because patrons could unknowingly ingest foods causing an allergic reaction or illness. The misrepresentation of food items had been corrected at the time of hearing. Mr. Wong admitted that the escolar labeling had been incorrect, but that the crab labeling was only a handwritten note to the chefs in the area where they work both with soft-shelled crabs (real crab) and imitation crab used in sushi products. The patrons are not served imitation crab when the dish calls for real crab or real crab when the dish calls for imitation crab. Regardless of the corrective actions taken, the Department's policy is to immediately issue an administrative complaint when a misrepresentation violation is noted. The next most serious violation noted by Inspector Crowley occurred during both the July 14 and December 14 inspections. He observed the use of a grooved and pitted cutting board that was no longer cleanable. This constitutes a violation because dirt and food remain in the grooves even after the cutting board has been washed, allowing bacteria to grow, which can lead to future contamination of food products. Respondent was unable to remove the cutting board after the July 14 inspection because it was part of the counter where food preparation occurs. Mr. Wong testified that it is used only as a table since the July 14 inspection, not as a cutting board. He admitted that bacteria on the board could be transferred to the underside of food-bearing plates placed on it. The next most serious violation was observed by Inspector Crowley at both the July 14 and December 14 inspections. He observed a buildup of grease on the surface of equipment that does not come into contact with food. This constitutes a violation of cleanliness standards which can ultimately lead to food-borne illness. Inattention while cleaning led to the buildup of grease on equipment surfaces.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a penalty in the amount of $500 for the critical violation concerning the mislabeling of the escolar; $500 for the critical violation of using the handwashing sink for purposes other than handwashing; $150 for the non-critical violation of continuing to use the grooved and pitted cutting board; and $150 for the non-critical violation of allowing grease to accumulate on non- food contact surfaces. The total fine in the amount of $1,300 shall be paid to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants within 30 days of the entry of its final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Christopher Wong Teriyaki Cafe Sushi and Grill 8084 North Davis Highway, Suite A1 Pensacola, Florida 32514 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is an eating establishment located in Green Cove Springs, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held license number 2001008 issued by the Division. Critical violations are those violations that, if not corrected, are most likely to contribute to food-bourne illness. Non-critical violations are those that are not directly related to food-bourne illness, but if they remain in non- compliance, are likely to lead to the development of a critical violation. Janet D’Antonio is a sanitation and safety inspector employed by the Division. Ms. D’Antonio has a bachelor’s degree and is a certified food manager. She has been employed by the Division for approximately 23 years. She also has received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging. On September 24, 2008, Ms. D’Antonio conducted an inspection of Respondent's premises and issued an inspection report while on the premises. During the September 24, 2008 inspection, Ms. D’Antonio observed several violations including “false/misleading statements published or advertised relating to food/beverage.” Ms. D’Antonio issued a warning that the violations must be corrected by a call-back date of November 25, 2008. The following appears in the upper right-hand corner of the inspection report: “FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION REQUIRED. Inspector determined violations require further review, but are not an immediate threat to the public.” Ms. D’Antonio cited the restaurant with false/misleading statements because the menu listed crabmeat when artificial crabmeat was actually served. Ms. D’Antonio determined this by looking in the refrigerator and finding a package labeled “imitation crab.” Ms. D’Antonio considers this a critical violation because the public might think real crabmeat is being served when, in fact, it is imitation crabmeat. According to Ms. D’Antonio, the Division’s “operation guidelines” call for an immediate administrative complaint without allowing time for correction for this violation. Ms. D’Antonio conducted a call-back inspection on October 14, 2008. During the call-back inspection, Ms. D’Antonio did not check to see whether Respondent was still out of compliance regarding the allegation that Respondent used false or misleading advertising. She observed that all other violations found on the initial visit had been corrected. However, during the call-back inspection, Ms. D’Antonio observed that all of the menus contained the stamp, “Imitation Crabmeat,” whereas during the initial inspection, the menu said “crabmeat.” The call-back inspection report contained the following notation: “Call back conducted early at owner’s request.” Bao Jin Chen owns the restaurant that is the Respondent in this case. He maintains that the first time he was made aware that there was an issue regarding how crabmeat was identified on his restaurant’s menu was during Ms. D’Antonio’s initial inspection of the restaurant. Mr. Chen asserts that following the initial inspection, he stamped all of the menus to reflect that the crabmeat served was imitation, while waiting for the menus to be reprinted. Mr. Chen also asserts that they put up a large sign on a wall of the restaurant to inform the customers that imitation crabmeat is served rather than real crabmeat. Additionally, when a customer orders a food item with crabmeat, he or his employees inform the customer that they serve imitation crabmeat. His testimony regarding these assertions is deemed credible and is accepted.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint which gave rise to this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Barbara J. Staros 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 8th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-1015 Bao Jin Chen China Wok 3540 US Highway 17, No. 127 Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043 William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, J & M Seafoods, Inc., processed, sold and delivered food (seafood) where the net weight of the containers were less than that stated on the containers. If so, what, if any, disciplinary sanction should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. J & M Seafoods, Inc., Respondent herein, is a processor and packer of seafoods in Hialeah Gardens, Florida. On August 11, 1983, frozen lobster tails processed and packed by J & M Seafoods, Inc. were sold to Florida fish distributors in Jacksonville, Florida. Those lobster tails were inspected by a representative of the Petitioner, Robert Bailey, inspector. Inspector Bailey visited the warehouses of Florida fish distributors and inspected approximately 72 boxes of lobster tails which were labeled for ten pounds (160 ounces each) . Inspector Bailey weighed each ten pound box with ice glaze on the product. Inspector Bailey thawed the product and the net weight found for the individual boxes averaged 96 ounces or 64 ounces less than the claimed weight of 160 ounces. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Inspector Bailey thereafter resealed the boxes and placed a Stop Sale Order after the boxes were retaped with Petitioner's Stop Sale Order attached thereto. Inspector Bailey subsequently authorized the movement of the goods under the Stop Sale Order and the product was transferred back to the Respondent's warehouse in Hialeah Gardens, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Armando Esceto, an agriculture and produce specialist (food inspector) employed by Petitioner, inspected the Stop Sale product at the Respondent's warehouse in Hialeah Gardens. One of Respondent's agents, a Mr. Miranda, identified the boxes and advised that he sold the product to a processor in the Jacksonville area. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5) Inspector Esceto rechecked the Stop Sale product and noted that the actual weight was 94 ounces versus the claimed weight of 160 ounces. Sometime thereafter, Inspector Esceto again was summoned to the Respondent's warehouse to recheck the product and found that it fell within the allowable weight discrepancy. He therefore issued a release notice for the product to be sold. (Petitioner's Exhibits 9, 10, and 11) John Rychener, Petitioner's Bureau Chief for the Food Grades and Standards Division, was in charge of the overall investigation of the subject case by the Petitioner. Frozen lobster tails, on the average, sell for approximately $6.10 to $6.20 per pound. The product in question, as originally packed, processed and sold, contained approximately 40 percent ice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, impose an administrative fine of $1,500 on Respondent for violations as set forth herein above. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 16th day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank A. Graham, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael I. Rose, Esquire Roberts Building Suite 303 and 330 28 W. Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 John Rychener Bureau Chief Food Grades and Standards Division Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint which demands relief against Respondent's Monroe County license (WD 000938), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The secondary issue is whether Respondent's Dade County license (WD 000008) should be denied renewal. A companion case, Didi's Seafood Corporation Department of Natural Resources (Case No. 86-4512), addresses the third issue of whether Didi's Monroe license is entitled to renewal. The Recommended Order in that case is being issued concurrent with this Order.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the Prehearing Stipulation, I make the following findings of fact: Roland Suarez was Vice-President of Respondent when the described offenses were committed. Ofelia Suarez was Treasurer of Respondent when the described offenses were committed. Respondent held, and applied for renewal of, WD license nos. 000008 (Dade County) and WD 000988 (Monroe County). The described Federal offenses were committed between November 30, 1982 and December 14, 1982. The described offenses, as pled guilty to, were violations of the Federal Lacy Act [16 U.S.C. s.3372(a)(2)(A) and s.3373(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2)]. The Federal Lacy Act violations were predicated upon violation of Section 370.14(2)(a)(1), Florida Statutes (1983); which prohibits possession of undersized lobster tails. The charges against Respondent and Rolando Suarez involved knowingly transporting with intent to sell, offer for sale, and sale of approximately 400 pounds of undersized lobster tails. Four hundred twenty pounds of undersized lobster tails constitutes more than 100 individual tails. Based upon the testimony of the witness and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following additional Findings of Fact: On January 9, 1986, Didi's Seafood Corporation pled guilty to a crime constituting a violation of Section 370.14(2)(a)(1), Florida Statutes and Title 16, U.S. Code Sections 3372(a)(2)(A) and 3373(d)(1)(B). Respondent was then convicted as charged for the offense of knowingly transporting with the intent to sell, offering for sale, and knowingly selling, in interstate commerce approximately 400 pounds of undersized spiny lobster tails with a market value in excess of $350.00, knowing that said spiny lobster tails were possessed in violation of the law. Respondent was ordered to pay a fine of $1000.00. On January 9, 1986, Rolando Suarez pled guilty to a crime constituting a violation of Title 16, USC, 3372(A) and 3373(d)(2). Rolando Suarez was then convicted of the offense of transporting with intent to sell and offering for sale undersized spiny lobster tails. Roland Suarez was ordered to pay a fine of $1000.00. Didi's Seafood Corporation has been in business since 1973. Each year prior to January, 1986, Respondent had successfully renewed its wholesale dealer's licenses for Dade County (WD 000008) and Monroe County (WD 000988). The licenses did not run on the calendar year, but expired on June 30 of each year. The Monroe license (WD 000988) therefore expired on June 30, 1986. The Dade license (WD 000008) was denied renewal on April 7, 1986. On June 29, 1986, Ernesto Pichardo, the plant manager for Respondent's Monroe County business, executed an affidavit as to the wholesale dealer's law abiding reputation and attempted to renew the Monroe license. The renewal was denied based upon the conviction described in Finding of Fact paragraph 8. Any criminal acts which may have occurred took place in connection with the Dade County license (WD 000008). There is no evidence to suggest that either Ernesto Pichardo or any other person connected with Respondent's Monroe County business has been arrested or convicted of any crime. On January 13, 1986, Roland Suarez executed an affidavit as to wholesale dealer's law abiding reputation. On January 27, 1986, Roland Suarez executed another affidavit as to wholesale dealer's law-abiding reputation. Both of these affidavits were in connection with the Dade County license and required Roland Suarez to answer the following question: Excluding traffic offenses, I have either been arrested for or convicted of the following offenses. List each offense and the year arrested or convicted. If you have never been arrested or convicted, write "None." In both cases the answer given was "none." Roland Suarez' affidavit was false since he had been convicted of the charges described in Finding of Fact, paragraph 9. On June 25, 1984, Roland Suarez, Jr., was issued a citation which alleged a violation of Section 370.07(1) Florida Statutes, for operating as a seafood dealer without a wholesale license. This citation was issued in Dade County, Florida. On April 2, 1984, Ofelia Dopica Suarez received a citation alleging a violation of Section 370.07(1) Florida Statutes for operating as a seafood dealer without a wholesale license. Roland Suarez, Jr. and Didi's Seafood Corporation pled guilty to the federal charges described in Finding of Fact paragraphs 8 and 9 to avoid the time and cost of continuing the defense of the violations. Mr. Suarez denied knowingly receiving undersized lobster tails. The lobster tails were from Nicaragua and were in transit when seized. Because about 10,000 pounds of lobster tails were seized and mixed, frozen, it was impossible to determine if any of the tails seized at Didi's plant were undersized. Respondent received payment for a portion of the alleged undersized lobsters tails since some percentage, still unknown to the parties, was legal. The exact number, if any, of undersized lobsters tails was not determined. The federal identification number for Respondent's Monroe County business and Dade County business is the same, ID #59-1465901.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawn it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, but granting the renewal of its licenses and placing them on probation for a period of two years. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1470 Rulings of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent. 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact paragraphs 1-8. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Rose, Esquire Suite 303, Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building, Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mr. Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas G. Tomasello, Esquire General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the equipment purchase and lease agreement to which Paul Richards and Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., became parties is an "investment contract" and so a security, within the meaning of Section 517.021, Florida Statutes (1985)? If so, whether it was exempt from registration requirements under Section 517.061(11)(a), Florida Statutes (1985)? If not, whether respondent Ogle solicited an offer, or offered or attempted to dispose of any interest in the agreement for value?
Findings Of Fact William Carl Webster had an idea, but no money. In fact, the business he and his wife owned, Cap'n Carl's Seafood Company, was in bankruptcy. No stranger to the seafood business, wholesale or retail, he had been involved for some twelve years. He came to believe he could profit by adopting a technique he noticed purveyors of pizza and milk used: the "impulse freezer," a topless display freezer rolled into the middle of a grocery store aisle to attract customers' attention. The "concept" was to sell frozen seafood wholesale to licensed food retailers. Webster believed it would be a simple matter of establishing the accounts, installing the freezers, and arranging with a reputable Tampa Bay fish house to deliver "custom packed" seafood. Overhead would be minimal, or so Mr. Webster told Barry Louis Harris, with whom he had played baseball in high school, and from whom he borrowed three thousand dollars for the new venture. None of this money was left by the time Mr. Webster dropped in on Jerry Russell Ogle, an account executive in the Fort Walton Beach office of A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., to discuss the ins and outs of going public, in late April of 1984. Mr. Ogle recommended against going public but expressed a willingness to help for a fee. Both Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., and Florida Seafood Brokers, Inc., came into existence on April 24, 1984. Articles of incorporation drawn by Messrs Webster and Harris, with the help of a kit, were filed that day. Jerry Ogle is registered with petitioner as a securities dealer. One of Mr. Ogle's customers, Paul Richards, had been a builder and developer before he moved to Florida from Ohio. As he sold properties in Ohio, he deposited the proceeds in his account at the Fort Walton Beach office of A. G. Edwards & Son. Since Mr. Richards had expressed an interest in investing in a small business, Mr. Ogle thought some of this money might be available for the enterprise on which Messrs Webster and Harris had embarked. Before taking Mr. Richards to lunch at the Harborlight, Mr. Ogle sought and obtained the oral approval of the A. G. Edwards' branch manager to work as a "marketing consultant" for Florida Seafood Centers, Inc. At lunch, he mentioned Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., and gave a "capsule form" account of the business to Mr. Richards. Mr. Richards expressed interest, and Mr. Ogle arranged a second luncheon meeting a week or two later. Messrs Richards, Webster, Harris and Ogle gathered in Mr. Ogle's office, before setting out for lunch at the High Tide. Mr. Ogle told Mr. Richards he thought that Mr. Webster's idea was a good one, but it was Mr. Webster who presented the idea in detail. Although remarking that he might be "digging a hole and throwing money into it," Mr. Richards decided to purchase 25 freezers from Florida Seafood Centers, Inc. On May 23, 1984, he signed an equipment purchase and lease agreement, but negotiations continued and the final agreement was executed on May 24, 1984, in Mr. Ogle's office. At this meeting, Mr. Richards drew a check for $10,000.00 on his A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. Total Assets Account, Mr. Ogle witnessed the equipment lease agreement Messrs Richards and Webster signed, and Mr. Ogle wrote, at the bottom of the agreement, "Rec'd $10,000 5-24-84 JRO." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 Under the equipment purchase and lease agreement, Mr. Richards purchased freezers to lease to Florida Seafood Centers, Inc. In exchange, he was to receive "one half of the net profit of [each] freezer . . . not [to] exceed $800.00 per month for each freezer." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. As per Ogle's suggestion, he was also to get "1 percent of gross sales revenue of Florida Seafood Centers," Id., all payments to begin after a 180-day "grace period." Mr. Richards' only obligation under the parties' agreement was to pay $1,500.00 for each freezer, or $37,500.00 in all. He had the option to choose among available locations, but had no responsibilities for installation or operation of the freezers or for the sale of seafood. His role was that of a passive investor. Mr. Richards was the only person in Florida who invested in this way, although two of the Alabamians who invested also had houses in Florida. Mr. Richards understood he was the initial investor, but knew others would be approached. The equipment purchase and lease agreement was never registered as a security. Mr. Harris took Mr. Richards' $10,000.00 check to a Barnett Bank branch and opened a bank account for Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., by depositing the check less $2,000.00 cash the bank disbursed and Mr. Webster took to cover expenses already incurred. The first check drawn on Florida Seafood Centers, Inc.'s first bank account was for $500.00 in favor of Mr. Ogle, dated May 28, 1984. Mr. Ogle had told Mr. Webster he expected to be paid for his time and Mr. Webster had agreed, before Mr. Richards signed the equipment lease agreement, to pay Mr. Ogle something if he was ever in a position to do so. At the hearing, they testified the payments to Mr. Ogle - $2,000 in cash from the proceeds of Mr. Richards' second and final check to Florida Seafood Brokers, Inc., dated June 4, 1984, in addition to the $500 check - were for his services as a "marketing consultant." Mr. Ogle never told Mr. Richards he had any sort of agreement with Florida Seafood Brokers, Inc. or Mr. Webster, and Mr. Richards was aware of none before investing in the enterprise. Mr. Ogle did know that bankruptcy had befallen Cap'n Carl's Seafood Company. Mr. Richards never received any payments or sales reports. Some freezers were placed in Piggly Wiggly stores in Birmingham, among other places, without, however, Mr. Richards' advice or assistance, as far as the record shows. Such sales of fish as Messrs Webster and Harris made were in amounts too small to make deliveries of custom-packed seafood economic, so they were obliged to repack the seafood themselves, which entailed renting space and bringing it up to health department standards, all at considerable, unanticipated expense. Eventually the business failed.
