The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to payment in connection with the sale of watermelons in June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner grows watermelons. He has only done business with Respondent Jim Rash, Inc. (Respondent) in 1991 and 1992. In both of those years, Petitioner was responsible for the hiring of the crews to pick the melons and load the trailers. Respondent obtained receivers who supplied the trailers and then drove them to the markets, which are typically up north. In 1991, Respondent paid for two of the seven loads at the weighing scales and the remainder a few days later. It is unclear whether the latter payment was made before the shipments were received by the wholesalers and retailers from the shippers or receivers. In 1991, as in 1992, the parties maintained no documentation indicating when Respondent became liable for payment to Petitioner. The parties agree that the subject sale was not a sale on consignment. The price of the watermelons was fixed. Petitioner testified that the sale was to Respondent and complete once the weighing was completed and the final price could be calculated. Petitioner might allow a few days to pass before payment, but this, according to Petitioner, was only a convenience to Respondent. Respondent's representative testified that the role of Respondent was to find receivers who shipped the melons to wholesale or retail markets. If the melons were rejected there, then Petitioner was not due payment for the rejected melons. Perhaps the major problem for the parties is that 1992, unlike 1991, was a poor year for watermelon sellers. Unfortunately, the parties did not document which of them was to bear the risk of loss due to poor market conditions, or even due to substandard watermelons in terms of size or quality. Although the loading was performed by persons hired by Petitioner, Jim Rash, who died in December, 1992, supervised the loading of the melons at Petitioner's farm. He could note size discrepancies relatively easily. Although Respondent's representative testified that his late brother accepted the melons under protest, this testimony is not credited. Without Petitioner's consent, Mr. Rash evidently decided to market the melons as a premium, relatively small variety known as Sangrias, which they are not. However, Petitioner admitted that he should not be paid for watermelons that are of substandard quality. He did so when he admitted that Respondent's claim on spoiled or overripe watermelons would be a different matter if he had had a USDA inspector certify that the melons were bad. Although Mr. Rash took some field samples, he could not have as readily determined the condition of the watermelons as he could have determined their size. Petitioner has proved that Respondent was liable for payment of all melons loaded on the trailers except for those that were of deficient quality. In this case, between June 22 and 28, 1992, Petitioner sold nine loads to Respondent under the above-described terms. The total due Petitioner was $18,802.20, of which Respondent paid all but $5175.80. The only load that was rejected due to the watermelons' condition, rather than size, was the one in which Petitioner was underpaid by $2240.80. The purchaser in Chicago rejected these watermelons on June 26, 1992--two days after Petitioner sold them--because they were overripe and bruised.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner the sum of $2935. ENTERED on March 30, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Sonny Chesnut, pro se Route 1, Box 658 Bonifay, FL 32421 Earl M. Rash Post Office Box 1180 Dundee, FL 33838 Legal Department Fidelity & Deposit of Maryland Post Office Box 1227 Baltimore, MD 21203
Findings Of Fact On or about May 28, 1986, Petitioner, T. J. Chastain, was engaged in the business of farming in Punta Gorda, Florida. One of his crops was watermelons. William P. Douberly, Jr., representing himself to be a licensed agricultural dealer, came to him and asked to buy what watermelons he had for sale. Petitioner and Mr. Douberly entered into negotiations for the purchase and Petitioner offered to sell the melons for 5.5 cents per pound. After some deliberation, the parties orally agreed to a sale at 5 cents per pound. Nothing was reduced to writing. The agreement was quite loose and much was left unstated. Costs of freight and other costs incidental to the sale were not mentioned by either party. It was understood, according to Petitioner, that Respondent would provide transport and, in fact, Douberly did contract with a trucker to provide transport of the melons to the ultimate delivery location. Petitioner claims that Mr. Douberly, the only individual with whom he dealt, looked over the watermelons prior to agreeing to the purchase. No conditions or qualifications were placed on the melons by Mr. Douberly and Petitioner contends that a requirement the melons be #1 grade was not stated. Petitioner had his helpers load the truck provided by Mr. Douberly who, according to Petitioner, remained on the scene over the three to four hours it took to put the melons on the truck and, he contends, Douberly saw them being loaded. Mr. Douberly, on the other hand, contends that he observed only the first half of the first truckload being placed on the truck. Thereafter, because he had other things to do, he left and did not return until the next day at which time the original truck was fully loaded as was the second truck he had provided. He contends, therefore, that he saw only one quarter of the entire load placed on the trucks. According to Mr. Chastain, when the first truck was loaded Mr. Douberly asked Petitioner if he wanted to follow the truck to the scale to see how much the load weighed. Mr. Chastain declined, stating that Mr. Douberly should weigh the melons and bring him back the weigh ticket along with payment for the load. He contends that when Mr. Douberly came back that same day with the ticket, he indicated that he wanted another load, alleging that the first load was somewhat overweight and some of the melons had been removed from the truck, to be placed on a second truck as the first part of a second load. Mr. Chastain relates that when the Respondent asked for the second truckload of melons, they engaged in no discussion about any change in the terms of sale. Mr. Chastain assumed that the purchase price would still be 5 cents per pound and the same procedure was to be followed for the second load. Though Respondent was to have paid for the first load after the weight was calculated, Petitioner assumed that when the second load was weighed, the Respondent would come back and pay for both. In fact, Mr. Douberly did not return after the second truck left and did not pay for either load. Numerous attempts to locate him were unsuccessful until ultimately, Mr. Chastain was able to reach him through Douberly's father. Notwithstanding his request for payment, Mr. Chastain did not receive any communication regarding the two loads of melons until some time later when by undated letter from Mr. Douberly, he received a check for slightly over $250.00 in full payment for all the melons. This letter described the condition of the melons at the time they were inspected by a federal inspector and indicated that 43 percent of at least the first shipment was defective in some fashion or another. The letter also indicated that Mr. Chastain was charged freight on both shipments at the rate of 4.4 cents per pound on the good melons sold. The only evidence to show the total weight of the two shipments consists of the letter from Mr. Douberly, Respondent's agent, indicating that the first load weighed 46,250 pounds and that the second weighed 29,990 pounds. This admission of weight by Respondent's agent is dispositive of any issue of the total weight involved and it is found that the total weight of melons shipped was the total of the two, 76,240 pounds. A federal inspection certificate dated June 2, 1986, reflecting an inspection which took place in Joplin, Mo., indicates that the applicant, Millsap Produce, counted 39,500 pounds. This is less than one of Mr. Douberly's load counts and more than the second. Since it cannot be shown which load was involved, or if both were involved in that inspection, as was indicated above, the letter from Mr. Douberly is considered the best evidence of the number of pounds of melons sold by Mr. Chastain to the Respondent. It must be noted that as of the time of the inspection, the refrigeration unit on the truck was inoperative. Returning to the description of the melons inspected by federal officials, the load was described as containing mature, clean, fairly well to well shaped melons. The flesh was described as having a good color with varying percentages of defects such as scars, misshapes, overmaturity, sunburn, and bruises, with 2 percent decay. Notwithstanding this, the melons were graded as meeting quality requirements but not coming up to US Grade #1 standards only because of their condition. Because he inspected only one quarter of the total melon shipment, which he graded as US Grade #1 at the time, Mr. Douberly contends that the Petitioner must have substituted substandard melons for the remaining melons in order to bring the overall grade of the shipment down below standards. He admits that the shipment was picked up from Mr. Chastain's field with the truck parked beside the road, but alleges that since he was not present throughout the entire loading process, Mr. Chastain had the opportunity to bring in substandard melons. Mr. Chastain denies bringing in any other melons and it is found there was no substitution. Mr. Chastain further indicates that nothing was discussed between him and Mr. Douberly regarding the necessity that the entire shipment be #1 grade fruit. He at no time agreed to guarantee the quality of melons and at no time did he agree to be responsible for the cost of transportation if the melons were determined to be of insufficient quality for sale at destination. This was never mentioned. Mr. Chastain pointed out, that in the industry, shipments of produce, where the purchasing broker provides transport, are FOB point of loading sales. No evidence to contradict this was presented by Respondent and it is so found. There were no alternative arrangements made or suggested by the buyer and Mr. Chastain indicated that it is his practice to always sell FOB point of loading. This was a cash sale, according to Chastain, and he expected to be paid by Douberly that night after weighing or, at the latest, the next morning when the second load was weighed. Mr. Douberly contends that the terms of the agreement between him and Mr. Chastain called for him to buy two loads of watermelons at 5 cents per pound pending delivery. The term, "pending delivery", means that the melons were of questionable quality and that Mr. Douberly would pay the grower depending upon how much the melons sold for when delivered. However, this contention is not supportable. It is highly unlikely, and denied by Mr. Chastain, that as grower, he would sell melons for the low price of 5 cents per pound to a buyer who provided the transportation and still agree to assume the risk of spoilage and transportation when he had no control over the method of transport and the time of sale. Mr. Douberly denies having seen the loading of any more than the first half of the first truck. Though he had the opportunity to do so, he did not inspect the melons being placed aboard the trucks nor did he inspect the field. He did, however, examine the first half of the first load, which came out of the same fields and, by his own admission, graded them as US #1. When Mr. Hogan advised Mr. Douberly several days later that there was a problem with the melons, Mr. Douberly claims he tried four or five times while he was still in Petitioner's area, to contact Chastain and left messages for him to call back. Even though, he claims, Mr. Chastain knew where he was staying and had his phone number, no calls were returned. On the other hand, Mr. Chastain indicated he never heard from Mr. Douberly after the second truck was loaded and his efforts to find him to collect his money were unsuccessful. It is unlikely that Mr. Chastain, who had not been paid, would have allowed from May 28 to on or after June 2, some five days or so, to go by without trying to contact his buyer if he knew where he was. More likely, Mr. Douberly was no longer in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture issue a Final Order providing that Petitioner recover from Respondent or its bonding agent, the sum of $3,812.00. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 30th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Oaks, Esquire 201 West Marion Avenue Suite 205 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Gary Hogan Post Office 626 Clarkton, Missouri 63837 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ted Helms, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 American State Insurance Company Attn: Bill Kaminski 801 94th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to $7,433.00, or any part thereof, from Respondent on the basis of a brokered sale of watermelons?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner Terry McCully was a first-year independent grower of Sangria watermelons in Jasper, Florida. Respondent is a professional broker of produce. On June 13, 1999, Petitioner and Nolan Mancil, known to Petitioner as a watermelon buyer from Georgia representing Respondent, "walked" Petitioner's sole field. On June 13, 1999, Petitioner and Mr. Mancil agreed that Respondent would pay 10¢ per pound for watermelons from Petitioner's sole field of watermelons. However, Petitioner also understood that ultimately, his payment would be based on whatever the "market price" was, per load. Petitioner had no prior experience with how "market price" is defined or determined. At all times material, Nolan Mancil was acting as an agent of Respondent, and regardless of the extent of the authority actually authorized by Respondent, Mr. Mancil had, with Respondent's concurrence, apparent authority for all agreements reached with Petitioner. According to Respondent's President, Mr. Ward, the standard in the industry is that no value is placed on an agricultural commodity until a final price is determined with the ultimate consumer/retailer. Respondent produced business records tracking each of the six loads harvested from Petitioner's field (including the four loads in dispute) and showing the accepted weights for each load. According to Mr. Mancil, "market price" is "zero," unless some amount is paid by the retailer to the broker on delivery and the amount paid on delivery constitutes "the market price." He denied ever telling Petitioner that their oral contract would use the United States Department of Agriculture National Watermelon Report (USDA Report) to specifically set a daily market price, although he admitted that at a later point in time, under changed conditions (see Finding of Fact No. 19) he had told Petitioner that the USDA Daily Report could be the maximum price. Petitioner conceded that he received the USDA Report from the Department of Agriculture Extension Agent only after a dispute arose and Petitioner had begun to prepare his claim. The undersigned infers therefrom that Petitioner was only aware of this methodology of setting a market price "after the fact." On Monday, June 14, 1999, Nolan Mancil's harvesters and graders entered Petitioner's field. Petitioner agreed to pay for the harvesting by Respondent's deduction of harvesting costs from each load after sale to the ultimate buyer, but at this point Petitioner also expected Respondent to pay him by the load, each load, immediately after sale at the ultimate point of sale (FOB). On Tuesday, June 15, 1999, trucks hired by Mr. Mancil and/or Respondent began removing watermelons from Petitioner's field. On that day, Mr. Mancil indicated that the watermelons being loaded were worth only 8-1/2¢ per pound. Petitioner agreed to the change in the amount to be paid. At some point, Petitioner accommodated Mr. Mancil by getting a truck, driver, and loaders, and by feeding Mr. Mancil's crew members. Petitioner seeks no reimbursement for these accommodations. Respondent took two truckloads away on June 15, 1999. Load #3664 of 46,340 pounds "shipped weight" and 45,830 pounds "accepted weight" were brokered by Respondent to a retailer at 8¢ per pound. Load #3692 of 48,060 shipped weight and 43,392 pounds accepted weight were brokered to a retailer at 9¢ per pound. Respondent's business records show that on the first (undisputed) load, the sale to a retailer was contracted by Respondent at 8¢ per pound, but when the time came to settle- up, the payment was made by Respondent's retail customer at the small melon size (13-plus pounds), not at the medium or large melon size. Respondent's business records further show that the second (undisputed) load was contracted at 9¢ per pound but was ultimately paid-out at the average weight per melon of 15.4 pounds instead of at 19.2 pounds per melon, after an initial rejection by the first buyer. No brokerage fee was imposed by Respondent on either of these undisputed loads, and on each of these loads, Respondent suffered a substantial loss. These losses were not passed on to Petitioner due to their "immediate cash payment" arrangement. Respondent immediately paid Petitioner for both loads at the agreed rate of 8-1/2¢ per pound, less harvesting costs and mandatory government fee. Petitioner does not dispute deduction of the government fee from the first two loads. Indeed, Petitioner's claim does not address the amount, method, or appropriateness of Respondent's payment to Petitioner for these first two loads. Petitioner's claim only addresses the last four loads harvested after June 15, 1999. After the first two loads, Mr. Mancil informed Petitioner that Respondent could no longer pay Petitioner in cash immediately after each load, but would henceforth pay Petitioner within 30 days. There is no dispute that Petitioner reluctantly agreed to this change in the timing of payment. Mr. Mancil claimed that he told Petitioner, either beginning with the third load or sometime between the third and fourth loads, that the USDA Report's daily price would be the highest price Petitioner could be paid by Respondent. According to Mr. Ward, over the four loads in dispute, the price received by Respondent from retailers was 7¢ per pound adjusted downward due to market conditions such as watermelon size being less than expected, smaller watermelons being in less demand, and the watermelons being in poor condition when accepted by the retailer(s). According to Mr. Ward, the net weight of a load is determined by deducting the truck's empty weight from the loaded weight of the truck; then the melons in the truck are counted, and that count is divided into the net weight, to get the average weight per melon. Petitioner maintained that he was never advised by Mr. Ward or Mr. Mancil that the watermelons in the last four loads were the wrong size or that many melons were not good. Mr. Mancil stated that he believed he had indicated to Petitioner that the watermelons in the last four truckloads were actually smaller than the size anticipated when the deal was struck on June 13, 1999, and that the watermelons were of poorer quality. He conceded that he was not sure Petitioner had understood him. There is no dispute that Petitioner's field was rather overgrown or that watermelons could be harvested despite this overgrowth. The overgrowth could have obscured the size and condition of the watermelons until after harvest. After the sixth load, neither Respondent nor Mr. Mancil sent any more trucks. There was never an agreement that Respondent would buy all the watermelons in Petitioner's field. Petitioner found it necessary to obtain trucks himself to haul away and dump the remaining watermelons which were rotting in his field. He seeks no reimbursement for this expense. Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I also find that the watermelons in the last four loads were smaller and inferior in quality to what had been expected. On June 16, 1999, 42,140 pounds shipped weight of watermelons were loaded by Respondent from Petitioner's field in Load #3691. Petitioner is claiming 7¢ per pound on the basis of a USDA Report on every pound for $2,879.00, less harvesting costs of $781.00 for $2,098.00. On June 17, 1999, 43,500 shipped weight of watermelons were loaded by Respondent from Petitioner's field in Load #3685. Petitioner is claiming 6¢ per pound on the basis of a USDA Report for every pound for $2,610.00, less harvesting costs of $826.00 for $1,784.00. The same day, 43,620 shipped weight of watermelons were loaded by Respondent from Petitioner's field in Load #3694. Petitioner is claiming 6¢ per pound on the basis of a USDA Report for every pound for $2,617.20, less harvesting costs of $830.00 for $1,787.20. Either on June 20, 21, or 22, 1999 (the dates on exhibits conflict), 43,000 shipped weight of watermelons were loaded by Respondent from Petitioner's field in Load #3702. Petitioner is claiming 6¢ per pound on the basis of a USDA Report for every pound less harvesting costs of $817.00 for $1,763.00. Petitioner bases the price per pound that he is claiming on his Exhibit P-6, the USDA Reports for June 17-18, and 21, 1999. He did not select from those reports the price per largest average weight of Sangria watermelon, but selected the middle or lowest average weight of "other red meat varieties." Except for June 21, 1999, this calculation gives Respondent the benefit of the doubt as to cents per pound for average market price on the respective USDA Reports, but in light of all the other evidence it is not an accurate method of calculating the true market price for the four disputed loads. Although Petitioner considers payment on the first two (undisputed) loads based on accepted weight to be within the parties' agreement and correct, he has not made his calculations of claim on the accepted weight of any of the last four (disputed) loads. Petitioner's calculations of claim also have not addressed the mandatory government fee for any of the last four (disputed) loads, although he considers payment on the first two, (undisputed) loads, for which Respondent deducted the mandatory fee, to be within the parties' agreement and correct. According to Respondent's business records for the four loads shipped after the Mancil-Petitioner re-negotiations of price per pound and discussion on maximum market pricing, these disputed loads were sold to retailers as follows: On June 16, 1999, Load #3691 had a shipped weight of 41,140 pounds and accepted weight of 39,940 pounds. The sale price was $0.055 per pound. The sale amount was $2,196.70. The government fee was $7.99. The harvesting cost was $781.00. A brokerage fee of $399.40 was subtracted, and Respondent's debt to Petitioner was calculated as $1,008.31. On June 17, 1999, Load #3685 had a shipped weight of 43,500 pounds and an accepted weight of 43,280 pounds. The watermelons were originally contracted for retail sale at $.0635 per pound but were refused by the first retailer as undersized. The second, alternative retailer bought these watermelons at a smaller-size market price for melons averaging 18 pounds, instead of 19.5- pound melons, and also made some returns of bad watermelons, so that the sale amount ended-up as $973.80, less a $8.66 government fee, less $826.00 for harvesting, less $216.40 brokerage fee, so that even Petitioner lost $77.26 on the deal. Also on June 17, 1999, Load #3694 had a shipped weight of 43,620 pounds and an accepted weight of 42,848 pounds. The contract sale had been for watermelons averaging 19.3 pounds, and the average size turned to out to be 16.7 pounds, and some of these melons were returned. The ultimate sale amount was $1,692.50, less a government fee of $8.72, less harvesting costs of $830.00, less brokerage fee of $321.36, with Respondent owing Petitioner $532.42. Finally, on or about June 22, 1999, the final load, #3702, had a shipped weight of 43,000 pounds, and accepted weight of 41,157 pounds, for a sale amount of $832.00; a government fee of $8.60; harvesting costs of $817.00; brokerage fee of $200.00; and amount due to Petitioner of $193.60. Again, the contract price of 6¢ from the retailer had been negotiated on melons in good condition of an average weight of 19.6 pounds, and the watermelons actually delivered by Respondent from Petitioner's field averaged 16.8 pounds, and many melons were returned to Respondent based on lack of quality. On the foregoing calculations, Respondent admits to owing Petitioner $1,269.87, rather than the $7,433.00 claimed by Petitioner's calculations. Neither party presented any evidence of an agreement to deduct a brokerage fee or how a brokerage fee was to be calculated. No brokerage fee was deducted by Respondent for the first two loads which are not in dispute, but Respondent actually suffered a loss on those loads which was not passed on to Petitioner (See Finding of Fact No. 14). For the last four loads, the only loads in dispute and the only loads for which a brokerage fee was deducted, the brokerage fee constitutes the only profit made by Respondent on the entire six-load transaction.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order requiring Respondent Growers Marketing Service, Inc. to pay Petitioner $1,269.87, plus interest, if any, to be calculated by the Department, and requiring that if Growers Marketing Service, Inc., does not pay the amount specified within 30 days of the final order that its surety, Preferred National Insurance Company, shall be liable to Petitioner for the full amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 3rd day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry McCully 3245 Northwest 30th Lane Jennings, Florida 33806 William R. Ward, Jr., President Growers Marketing Service, Inc. Post Office Box 2595 Lakeland, Florida 33806 Preferred National Insurance Company Post Office Box 407003 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact On April 22, 1988, an indemnity bond was executed between D & S as principal and Fidelity as surety. The effective dates of the bond were from April 22, 1988 to April 21, 1989. The bond was required under Sections 604.15-604.30, Florida Statutes, in order for D & S to become licensed as a dealer in agricultural products. The purpose of the bond is to secure the faithful accounting for and payment to producers of all agricultural products handled or purchased by D & S. In September 1987, Junior Martin met with Cliff Price and Buddy Session regarding the Spring 1988 watermelon crop in LaBelle, Florida. Junior Martin was the grower. Cliff Price was the harvester, and Buddy Session planned to become a dealer before harvest. During the meeting, Junior Martin and Buddy Session entered into a verbal agreement which contained the following terms: a) Junior Martin would sell Buddy Session all of the shippable melons in his fields on a per pound basis at market price on the day of shipment; b) Junior Martin would harvest and load the melons on trucks furnished by Buddy Session; c) settlement was to be made within a reasonable time after shipment; and d) settlement would include any adjustment for failure of the melons to meet the quality or grade contracted for by Buddy Session. Such adjustments could be made by Junior Martin taking less cash or giving Buddy Session replacement melons. In the interim period between the planting and the harvesting of the crop, the farms run by Junior Martin were incorporated and became Stacys Farms, Inc. Buddy Session formed D & S Product, Inc. during the same time frame. The verbal agreement between the two individuals was accepted by both the corporations who continued to transact business under its terms. The harvesting of the crop began in May 1988. The market price began at ten cents per pound but quickly dropped to nine cents. From May 15, 1988 through May 20, 1988, the producer and the dealer in these proceedings acted under the terms of the verbal agreement without controversy. During harvest, load tickets were prepared on site by Junior Martin's harvester, Cliff Price. Each load ticket reflected the number of pounds of melons loaded, the size and variety of melon, the date, market price, the driver's name and the trailer license number. Due to a mistake in loading as to the size of melons shipped from the loading dock on May 19, 1988, D & S assigned one of its own employees to the loading dock. The employee's job was to oversee the loading process and to make sure that the correct size of melons were loaded on the proper trucks. D & S owned the melons at the time they were placed on the trucks on May 21, 1988. D & S was not acting as Stacys Farms agent in the sale of melons. On May 21, 1988, a number of loads were purchased by D & S at the market rate of nine cents per pound. The loads in dispute which were loaded on this date are: 46,060 lbs. of medium Crimson watermelons loaded onto Trailer P78 Ohio, and shipped May 21, 1988. 40,020 lbs. of medium Crimson watermelons loaded onto Trailer 92102 S/T ILL, and shipped May 21, 1988. 53,800 lbs. of large Greys loaded onto Trailer BG133M Fla, and shipped May 21, 1988. 48,000 lbs. of medium Crimsons loaded onto Trailer T03286KY, and shipped May 21, 1988. 49,120 lbs. of medium Greys loaded onto Trailer TH50695 PA, and shipped May 21, 1988. 42,840 lbs. of large Crimsons loaded onto trailer C5XZ2676310, and shipped May 21, 1988. The total amount in dispute for these loads is $23,200.60. D & S contends that the melons shipped in the loads in dispute were below the quality or size for which it contracted. As a result, D & S contends it suffered a loss of $21,987.56. A review of D & S' business records show that Trailer P78 Ohio was also referred to upon occasion as 8878 Ohio. The load number was 88135. It appears from office notes made by D & S by a person who is ill with cancer (Petitioner's Exhibit #5) that the trouble with these melons was that the customer wanted large melons, not medium ones. (The notation states, "trouble NL".) Nevertheless, the load was accepted by the customer, Tom Lange. The purchase price paid by Lange was more than the price paid by D & S. The one hundred and fifty dollars less than the amount billed by D & S was a result of the sizing difference. Stacys Farms was accurate in its billing regarding the size of melons loaded, and D & S' on site employee accepted them and allowed the medium melons to be shipped. D & S owes Stacys Farms $4,145.40 for this load. D & S' business records show that the melons loaded on Trailer 92102 S/T ILL. were referred to as load number 88129. The load was received and paid for by D & S customer E.W. Kean. D & S' business record has two numbers transposed in the weight entry on the computer printout. The bill of lading and the load ticket reflect the correct weight. Again, Petitioner's Exhibit #5 shows a notation of "trouble NL". Medium melons were shipped as reflected on the load ticket. A reasonable inference exists that D & S' customer wanted large melons as opposed to medium melons. The load was accepted by E.W. Kean, and the price billed of $3,800.00 was paid in full. D & S' on site employee accepted the load and allowed the medium melons to be shipped. Stacys Farms believed the medium melons were ordered and did not misrepresent the size purchased from them. D & S owes $1,616.80 to Stacys Farms for this load. The large Greys on Trailer BG133M Fla, were received by D & S' customer, Winn-Dixie in Jacksonville. Thirteen of the melons were cut open at the delivery site for inspection purposes prior to acceptance. The customer determined that the quality was not as good as represented at the time the shipment was ordered. The customer agreed to pay D & S $800.00 for the load. As the quality of these melons was below the quality contracted for, D & S does not have to pay the price placed on the loading ticket for these melons. In settlement under the oral agreement, D & S is entitled to an offset of $391.50, the remaining portion of the freight bill once the $800.00 paid is deducted. The medium Crimsons loaded onto Trailer T03286KY were accepted by D & S customer Maddox Brothers Produce, Inc. A government inspection of melons in warehouse bins of Taylor Produce three days later which purportedly came from the same trailer from Maddox Brothers were rejected by the second receiver. A drop in market price had also occurred in the interim. The customer paid $1,400.00 to D & S for the load. As there is no reliable evidence that the inspected melons were the same melons as those originally accepted three days before by Maddox Brothers, D & S owes Stacys Farms $4,320.00 for the melons. All of the other medium Crimsons loaded on May 21, 1988 appeared to be of acceptable quality. The uncorroborated hearsay regarding the origin of the inspected melons in Kentucky, especially after a market drop, is insufficient proof that Stacys Farms did not meet the terms of its verbal agreement with D & S regarding quality of shipped melons. D & S owes $4,320.00 for the melons. The computer records at D & S do not show the 49,120 lbs. of medium Greys loaded on Trailer TH50695PA pursuant to instructions from Tom Killmon. At the time the melons were loaded, Tom Killmon was a licensed buyer for D & S, but he also ran an independent melon business. Tom Killmon's business records reflect that he purchased the melons from D & S at nine and one-half cents per pound. The office memo referred to as Petitioner's Exhibit #5 acknowledges the load and that it received a government inspection. Tom Killmon's records reflect that he was paid for the melons but that he had not paid D & S. D & S owes $4,420.80 to Stacys Farms for the melons. Large Crimsons were loaded onto Trailer CSXZ676130 and shipped to Quebec as load number 88124. According to Petitioner's Exhibit #5, some trouble existed concerning the purchase by D & S' customer and the price of the melons was reduced by approximately $876.00. This later turned out to be $869.35. The business records show that the number of melons actually shipped to Montreal by D & S was less than the number of pounds represented on the bill of lading. At the point of destination only 38,443 lbs. of melons arrived. The quantity of melons and the freight flat rates were adjusted accordingly by the customer. For some reason, the purchase rate of $.123 per pound was reduced to $.11 per pound. There was no proof provided to establish whether the reduction in price had anything to do with the quality of the melons. Because a seal was placed upon the load at Stacys Farms prior to the shipment of the product by rail, a reasonable inference exists that the loading ticket accurately reflects the amount of melons purchased by D & S from Stacys Farms. The sum of $3,855.60 should be paid to Stacys Farms for this load.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring D & S to make payment to Stacys Farms in the amount of $17,967.10. In the event D & S does not comply with the Department's order within fifteen days from the date it becomes final, Fidelity should be ordered to provide payment under the conditions and provisions of the agricultural products bond. The bond only provides for payment up to $10,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 8th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #4-#5. Rejected. Improper conclusion. See HO #5. Rejected. Improper summary. Rejected. The weight to be given to testimony is within the sole discretion of the Hearing Officer. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #9. Rejected. Irrelevant and immaterial to the complaint. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #9. Respondent D & S' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected as to Buddy Session's status. Otherwise accepted. See HO #3 and #5. Rejected as to the term "top quality" in first sentence. Contrary to fact. Rejected as to last two sentences. Contrary to fact. See HO #4. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accept the first sentence. The rest is rejected. Contrary to fact. Improper conclusion. See HO #8. Rejected. Outside the terms of the complaint and the proceeding. Also, improper conclusion based upon insufficient evidence. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. Improper summary. Contrary to fact. See HO #4. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #17. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #17. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #13-#18. Copies furnished: Marilyn G. Sears Stacys Farms, Inc. 1201 Riverbend Drive LaBelle, Florida 33935 Philip L. Burnett, Esquire PHILIP L. BURNETT, P.A. Post Office Box 2258 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Post Office Box 1227 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland Honorable Doyle Conner Post Office Box 25857 Commissioner of Agriculture Tampa, Florida 33622 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Ben F. Pridgeon, Jr., Chief Bureau of License and Bond Mallory Horne, Esquire Department of Agriculture General Counsel and Consumer Services Department of Agriculture Lab Complex and Consumer Services Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondents Smith are broker-shippers of watermelons and qualify as "dealers" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent South Carolina Insurance Company is surety for Respondents Smith. Petitioners Brewton and Respondents Smith have had a good business relationship overall, including the 1992 growing season during which several loads of high quality watermelons were sold by the Brewtons through the Smiths. Of the several loads of melons sold, only one load, the one invoiced on June 18, 1992, is at issue. Regardless of oral agreements with varying conditions for other loads, the parties agreed as of June 18, 1992 that the load of June 18, 1992, invoice 2088, (R-5), would be paid for by Respondents Smith advancing harvest costs and agreeing to pay Petitioners for the load, minus the costs of harvesting, after Respondents had received payment from the recipient. At the time of loading, everyone concerned felt the June 18, 1992 load might have some problems with it, but every attempt was made to load only quality product. Petitioners and Respondents each had input on which specific melons were loaded. At that time, Mr. Rick Smith o/b/o Respondents Smith advised Mr. Dewey Brewton, III that because the quality of the load was borderline and as a result of its borderline condition the whole load could be rejected at its ultimate destination, Respondents Smith wanted Petitioners Brewton to protect the Respondents Smith on the quality of the melons. He also specifically advised Dewey Brewton, III that the whole load could be rejected. The parties then entered into an agreement, partly oral and partly written. Rick Smith and Dewey Brewton, III understood their agreement to mean that Petitioners would absorb any loss as a result of the quality of the watermelons from that point forward, but that Respondents would not come back against Petitioners for the costs Respondents had advanced on Petitioners' behalf or for the cost of the freight. To signify this, the words "grower protects shipper on quality" was written on the invoice. On or about June 22, 1992, Rick Smith informed Dewey Brewton, III that the entire June 18, 1992 load had been rejected by the first receiver. At that time, Dewey Brewton, III accepted Rick Smith's representation and did not require further proof of rejection at the first point of delivery or request an independent inspection at the first point of delivery. He also acquiesced in Respondents shopping around for a second buyer who might take all or some of the load originally sent out on June 18, 1992, and did not request the return of Petitioners' watermelons. At that time, Rick Smith also told Dewey Brewton, III that the load might have to be held on the truck a day or two to ripen some of the watermelons for a second point of delivery. He again indicated that the whole load could be rejected again when the load was sent on to a second receiver. Dewey Brewton, III specifically agreed to let the melons ripen "a day or so," and did not request any change in the grower protection plan initially agreed to between the parties. Respondents Smith were eventually able to market the melons to a second delivery point (consignee) in Michigan. That receiver complained that the melons started breaking down and he had to dump 735 melons. Pursuant to standard custom of the trade, Respondents accepted payment of $1,944.00 for the melons, subtracted $1,831.98 they had laid out in freight costs and also subtracted the $675.18 they had advanced on behalf of Petitioners to the harvester. Thus, Respondents sustained a net loss of $563.16. Respondents absorbed the $563.16 loss and did not require any repayment of harvesting costs advanced or any freight charges from Petitioners. Dewey Brewton, III testified that he originally understood that "grower protection" meant that Petitioners "would stand behind their quality product until the ultimate point," but that he had interpreted a comment by Mr. Rick Smith on June 22, 1992 to the effect that "the grower (Petitioners) agreed to 'ride' the watermelons and the shipper (Respondent) agreed to 'ride' the freight" to mean that the growers (Petitioners) no longer had any duty to cover their own losses on the June 18, 1992 load of watermelons after the first rejection and up to final sale to the second buyer. In light of Mr. Brewton's failure to change the written language concerning protection on the invoice, his knowledge from the day of initial shipment that the June 18, 1992 load was of dubious quality, his acceptance that the first recipient had rejected the load, and his agreement that Respondents could have a further waiting/ripening/shopping around period before ultimate sale, coupled with his knowledge from the very beginning that the June 18, 1992 load could be utterly rejected at any point so as to render the endeavor a complete loss to the Petitioners, Mr. Brewton's assumption that on June 22, 1992, Respondents Smith were voluntarily waiving their written agreement that "grower protects shipper on quality" was not reasonable. On June 22, 1992, the load had already been rejected once. At that stage, the outcome of the proposed sale was considerably more precarious than when the crop was loaded on June 18, 1992. It is also found Mr. Brewton's assumption that the agreement had been modified was not knowingly or intentionally induced by the Respondents and that the assumption was not contemporaneously conveyed to Respondents Smith so that they could disabuse Mr. Brewton of his error. Upon the foregoing, it is further found that the written initial agreement that "grower protects shipper on quality" was not altered on June 22, 1992 but continued in force.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 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 26th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Jacquelyn J. Brewton 8876 NW 115th Avenue Ocala, FL 34482 Dewey Brewton III 8876 NW 115th Avenue Ocala, FL 34482 Richard L. Smith Midwest Marketing Company P. O. Box 193 Vincennes, IN 47591 South Carolina Insurance Company Legal Department 1501 Lade Street Columbia, SC 29201-0000
The Issue Whether the Respondent owes the Petitioner money for watermelons allegedly purchased from Petitioner. The factual and legal issue is whether Respondent purchased the melons or acted as a broker/agent for Petitioner and attempted to sell the melons for Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact During the 1996 season, the Petitioner, who is a labor contractor and farmer, grew watermelons. The Respondent, who is a building contractor and watermelon broker, was “handling” watermelons in the area around Archer, Florida. The Respondent was represented by Tony Tharp, brother of the Respondent, who spoke with the Petitioner. As a result of an oral agreement reached between Tony Tharp and Petitioner, the watermelons which Petitioner had grown were picked by persons working for Tharp on June 20, 21, and 23, 1996. There was no written contract or memorandum regarding the agreement of the parties. Petitioner stated that he wanted to get his melons picked, but that he was busy with his crew and could not pick them, and the melons needed to be picked because they were past their prime. Tony Tharp agreed to “move them” for Petitioner. One truck load was picked and loaded on June 20; three truck loads were picked and loaded on June 21, and two truck loads were picked and loaded on June 23. Tharp paid Petitioner $700 which was termed an “advance” by Respondent, and considered a “down payment” by Petitioner, who understood he would receive the remainder of the money due him in approximately seven days. The trucking was arranged for by Tharp, and the Respondent bore the cost of picking and freight initially, and the merchants who received the melons paid the shipping for the melons they accepted. The melons were shipped to markets in several states. The first load was refused by the intended recipient, and after several attempts to dispose of the melons, they were sold at salvage for $180. The second load was also refused, and could not be salvaged. Pictures of this load were introduced where it was unloaded in Marianna, Florida. The remaining loads of watermelons were accepted, and $4,876.43 received for them. The costs of loading the two loads which were refused was $1,149.75. The freight costs on these two loads was $3,901.83. The Petitioner testified that the Tharp agreed to purchase the melons in the field, and, therefore, he is entitled to the purchase price for the melons. Dennis Tharp stated he was a broker, and that the Petitioner assumed the risk if the melons could not be sold. Dennis Tharp stated that he had lost the costs of picking, $1,149.75, and transporting, $3,901.83, the two loads of melons offset by the salvage value of $180.00, resulted in a total loss of $4,871.58. When the costs of picking the last four loads, $1,591.20, and the $700.00 advance on the sale is deducted from the proceeds of the sale of the last four loads, $4,876.43, the net profit on the last four loads is $2,585.23. When the profits from the sale of the last four loads is deducted from the loses on the first two loads, there is a net loss of $2,286.35. This net loss was absorbed by the Respondent. Several of the people who were in the field testified regarding the state of the melons being picked. The melons were past their prime for picking. On the last load, the pickers refused to pick any more melons without additional compensation because so many melons were being rejected at the truck. Petitioner, who was present, concurred in this extraordinary expense. Generally, melons are not sold because the market drops and the merchants refuse melons being shipped to them. In this case, the first melons were rejected, and the last loads were accepted. The quality of a watermelon cannot be determined without cutting it open which destroys its merchantability. Watermelon graders attempt to judge the quality of melons from the external characteristics; however, purchasers cut open samples upon receipt to judge their quality. The Respondent notified the Petitioner by letter dated July 11, 1996 that the first two loads had been rejected; that he had salvaged those he could; and that the costs related to these two loads exceeded the profits due Petitioner on the last four loads.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent owes no further money to the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Alphonso Hunt 226 Fawn Drive Archer, Florida 32618 Dennis Tharp 4516 Decatur Street Marianna, Florida 32446 Auto Owners Insurance Company Legal Department Post Office Box 30660 Lansing, MI 48909-8160 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issues presented in this case concern claims made by the Petitioner related to the delivery of agricultural products, namely watermelons, to the Respondent, Young, which petitioner claims have not been paid for. The claim has been advanced pursuant to Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. The disputed amount is $9,226.30. FINDINGS OF FACT 1/ Petitioner, who does business as Crawford Melon Sales, made an oral agreement with Respondent, Danny Lewis Young, who trades as Hugh Young Produce, to sell U.S. No. 1 watermelons for the price of .03 cents or .025 cents f.o.b. The total charge for the watermelons delivered and associated costs was $23,559.20, of which $14,332.90 has been paid, leaving a balance of $9,226.30. The watermelons were delivered in Florida to drivers who signed invoices of receipt at the time of shipment. The drivers were individuals dispatched by the Respondent Young or employed by the Petitioner. The exact dates of delivery are set forth in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1. All shipments were sent to Tennessee. The trucks were very tightly packed at the request of Respondent Young. Time in transport varied depending on whether the drivers were union affiliated. The union drivers would not drive for the same length of time before stopping, as contrasted with the non-union drivers. Jessie Johnson, who was a driver in the delivery of two of the loads, found 75 to 100 bad melons in his initial load delivered to Nashville, Tennessee. In the second load, Johnson observed 65 to 70 melons that were damaged to include some broken melons. Some of that group of 65 to 70 melons had been damaged at a time when they were unloaded in Clarksville, Tennessee. The 65 to 70 damaged melons which Johnson testified about in the second load were returned to Nashville, Tennessee to be Inspected. Each of the loads which were transported by Jessie Johnson and his brother Leroy Johnson contained 1,500 to 1,800 melons in the truck bed. Randall Harper, who had been employed by the Respondent Young, established that in those loads of 50,000 to 60,000 pounds, which are in dispute, there would he a certain amount of watermelons that were bruised because of their placement on the bottom of the stack in the truck bed. The Johnson brothers and Harper were not present at times when the federal agricultural inspector in Nashville, Tennessee, examined the subject loads of watermelons. Michael W. Golightly, an employee with the United States Department of Agriculture, was the individual who inspected some watermelons at issue. He had considerable experience in inspecting watermelons prior to his examination of the loads delivered pursuant to the oral agreement between Petitioner and Respondent Young. In addition to work experience, Golightly had attended schools designed to promote his expertise in the examination of commodities, such as watermelons, to determine their marketability. Through his experience and training, Golightly is an expert in identifying the grade quality of watermelons and any associated problem reducing the quality of the commodity, watermelons. His background and training is identified in his deposition which was offered as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 and admitted into evidence. The grading of watermelons is pursuant to standards developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and is found in Exhibit 2 to the deposition. In inspecting a load of watermelons, a representative sample is examined of approximately 100 watermelons, going from the top of the load to the bottom. The Petitioner's watermelons, which were inspected by Golightly, were all inspected in Tennessee, as contrasted with the point of origin in Florida. As a consequence, the standards to be applied in that inspection were not as rigid. The loads in question were examined by Golightly after a request had been made by Young to conduct the inspection. That request was made at the time of receipt of the watermelons and any delay in inspection was occasioned by other duties to be fulfilled by Golightly or the fact of an intervening weekend between the time of receipt and the time of inspection. In view of these delays, as much as two to five days would pass between the time that the watermelons were loaded and the inspection was made. The results of the inspections may be found as part of the Respondents' Exhibit No. 1 as exhibits to the deposition and as part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1. In examining the watermelons, anthracnose, anthracnose rot, stem end rot, sunburn, immature picks and bruising were found. With the exception of the 45,280 pound load of July 2, 1982, and the 76,060 pound load of July 11, 1982, by the deposition and attachments, which are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and the Respondents' Exhibit No. 1, which contains copies of inspections made by Golightly, it has been shown that the watermelons in dispute were subject to a rejection as U.S. No. 1 watermelons. The basis of the rejection pertains to the observation made by the inspector in which he found those categories of deficiencies related in this paragraph. Those deficiencies are completely described in the deposition and in the inspection reports. Pursuant to custom or practice in the watermelon business, Respondent Young was entitled to sell the substandard watermelons, found by the federal inspector, at the best price possible and to pay the Petitioner a reduced amount for the product. In fact, Respondent Young mitigated the circumstances by selling those questioned watermelons that could be sold and has paid the Petitioner money realized from those sales. In addition, he has paid the Petitioner the full amount on the 45,250 pounds of watermelons of July 2, 1982. He has only paid the Respondent .015 cents f.o.b. on the 76,060 pounds of watermelons of July 11, 1982. The agreed upon price was .03 cents f.o.b. for those watermelons of July 11, 1982, and there was no proof in the course of the hearing to the effect that those watermelons were substandard. Based upon the facts as presented, Respondent still owes the Petitioner an additional $1,140.90 for the 76,060 pounds of watermelons which were delivered on July 11, 1982. The petitioner also claims $350 as a payment advanced to a driver involved with the July 3, 1982, load of 51,270 pounds. Petitioner claims Young is responsible for the reimbursement of the $350 which Petitioner advanced to this driver. The document within Respondents' Composite Exhibit No. 1, which is a copy of the invoice or statement for the load shows the payment of that advance. None of the Respondents' proof by testimony or documentation indicates any reimbursement of the $350 and the $350 claim is found to be established. Another related claim pertains to the July 13, 1982, load of 46,440 pounds in which the allegation is made by the Petitioner that $428.80 in freight costs are due from the Respondent Young. This is a balance remaining from the $928.80 freight reflected in the invoice or statement of account of July 13, 1982, which is found in Composite Exhibit No. 1 by the Petitioner. The complaint allegation shows that $500 of the total $928.80 has been paid leaving the subject $428.80 at issue. The Petitioner has successfully established entitlement to $428.80 related to freight on that load and this proof has been unrefuted by the Respondent. Finally, Petitioner claims an additional sum of $859.20 for freight on the July 18, 1983, 42,960 pound load. The statement of account or invoice, which is part of Composite Exhibit No. 1 by the Petitioner, shows a freight claim in that amount, and is sufficient proof to demonstrate entitlement to that amount. The proof offered by the Respondent Young fails to refute this claim. When added to remaining money owed for watermelon sales per se, Respondent owes the Petitioner a total amount of $2,778.90 for watermelons and related cost of freight and incidentals. American Insurance Company is surety on a $20,000.00 bond for the benefit of the Respondent Danny Lewis Young d/b/a Hugh Young Produce. This arrangement represents the available funds to pay Petitioner's claims.
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 proceedings 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 Rentz was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1983), issued license No. 4103 by the Departments and bonded by Respondent Nationwide in the sum of $14,000 - Bond No. LP 505 761 0004. At all times pertinent to this proceedings Respondent Nationwide 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 21, 1985; Petitioner harvested from his field and loaded on a trucks procured by Respondent Rentz, 2,835 pee wee grey watermelons (watermelons) weighing a total of 43,380 pounds. On June 21, 1985, Petitioner harvested from his field and loaded on a trucks procured by Petitioner on Respondent Rentz's instructions, 1850 pee wee grey watermelons (watermelons) weighing a total of 43,460 pounds. The agreed upon price for both loads of watermelons was 2 1/2 cents per pound for a total gross sale price of $2,171.00 of which $353.55 was paid by Respondent Rentz on October 25, 1985 by check no. 290 drawn on the account of Mr. or Mrs. Ronald D. Rentz leaving a balance of $1,817.45. This amount does not include either the $20.00 for lumber added on to the June 21, 1985 invoice or the $20.00 added to the complaint for lumber. There was no evidence that the lumber was an agricultural product or that Petitioner produced the lumber charged to Respondent Rentz. Also the price of the lumber was added on and not included in price of the watermelons. The watermelons were invoiced to Seaway Produce by Petitioner on its invoice showing Ron Rentz as brokers at Respondent Rentz's request. Petitioner's understanding that Respondent Rentz was acting as buyer and not as a broker was credible and supported by Respondent Rentz's actions subsequent to the watermelons being loaded and shipped. Although Respondent Rentz contended that he was acting as a brokers the more credible evidence shows that Respondent Rentz was acting as a buyer and that risk of loss passed to him upon shipments with all remedies and rights for Petitioner's breach reserved to him. There was no official inspection of the watermelons when they were loaded and the evidence presented by Petitioner that the watermelons were of good quality and in good condition when shipped was believable and went unrebutted by Respondent Rentz. For purposes of Sections 604.15-604.30, Florida statutes; the Department's policy is to consider a person a brokers requiring only a minimum bond ($13,000.00) for licensure when that person does not take title to the product and whose function is to bring buyer and seller together and assist them in negotiating the terms of the contract for sale but not to invoice or collect from the buyer.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Rentz be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $1,817.45. It is, further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Rentz fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then Respondent Nationwide 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 Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 14th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 Robert Chastain General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Buildings Room 513 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ron Weaver, Esq. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Joe W. Kight Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Ronald Rentz Route 1, Box 3510 Havana, FL Bigham Hide Company, Inc. Post Office Box 188 Coleman, FL 33521 Lawrence J. Marchbanks Esq. P. O. Box 879 Wildwood, FL 32785 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company Attention: Robert Brand, Esq. Post Office Box 1781 Gainesville, FL 32602 Robert D. Stinson P. O. Box 1739 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact D. L. Wadsworth buys watermelons in the field and sells them to parties to whom the melons are delivered. In 1984 he agreed to buy melons from Charles Shackelford. In conducting his business Wadsworth is not an agent for the grower nor does he act as broker between the grower and the person who ultimately takes delivery of the melons. There was obviously a misunderstanding on the part of Petitioner as to the exact role played by Wadsworth in his buying of watermelons. Shackelford testified that Wadsworth agreed to handle his watermelon crop for the 1984 harvest. Wadsworth, on the other hand, does not buy fields but only "loads" on a daily basis. The harvesting of the watermelons is done by an agent of the grower, not by Respondent. Respondent buys the melons which he loads and ships out. On June 1, 1984, Respondent bought two loads of melons from Petitioner for which he paid four cents per pound. This is the same price Wadsworth paid to other growers from whom he purchased melons on June 1. On June 2, 1984, Respondent bought three loads of watermelons from Petitioner. Petitioner testified that he asked Respondent on June 2 what melons were bringing and was told four cents per pound. Wadsworth denies quoting a price to Shackelford but acknowledges that even if melons were bringing four cents a pound in New York he could not pay four cents per pound in Wauchula and ship them to New York without losing money on every watermelon he bought. Petitioner also testified that Respondent ceased handling his melons after June 2, 1984, that Respondent told him he was sick and was going back to Brandon and that he (Respondent) was not going to handle any more watermelons. Respondent denied that he was sick during this period or that he could not be contacted. Respondent paid his motel bill in Wauchula on June 9, 1984. On June 5, 1984, Respondent gave Petitioner his check for the watermelons he had purchased and an invoice (Exhibit 1) which showed the price for one load on June 1 at four cents per pound and three loads on June 2 at three and a half cents per pound. Respondent did not receive any complaint from Petitioner until the Complaint that is the basis of this hearing was filed. To support his testimony that he paid all growers the same price for watermelons purchased, Respondent submitted a list of those growers from whom he bought watermelons on May 31 through June 3 showing that he paid four cents per pound on the first two days of that period and three and a half cents per pound the last two days (Exhibit 2).
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
