Findings Of Fact The Respondents, F. H. Dicks, III; F. H. Dicks, IV; and F. H. Dicks Company, are wholesale dealers in watermelons which they purchase and sell interstate. The Respondents' agents during the 1991 melon season in the Lake City area were Harold Harmon and his son, Tommy Harmon. The Harmons had purchased watermelons in the Lake City area for several year prior to 1991, and the Petitioner had sold melons to them in previous seasons. The terms of purchase in these prior transactions had always been Freight on Board (FOB) the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. The terms of purchase of the melons sold by Petitioner to the Respondents prior to the loads in question had been FOB the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. One of the Harmons would inspect the load being purchased during the loading and at the scale when the truck was weighed out. After this inspection, the melons accepted by Harmon were Respondents'. Price would vary over the season, but price was agree upon before the melons were loaded. Settlement had always been prompt, and the Harmons enjoyed the confidence of the local farmers. In June 1991, the Harmons left the Lake City area. There were still melons being picked in the area, and Harold Harmon advised the Petitioner that Jim would be handling their business. On June 30, 1991, load F 267 of 48,600 pounds of watermelons was sold to the Respondents through their agent, Jim, for 4 per pound. Fifteen thousand pounds of this load of melons was purchased by Food Lion in Salisbury, NC, for $1,450, and the remaining 33,600 pounds were refused. That portion which was refused was transported back to Respondents' workplace, and 33,600 pounds of the melons were sold at 3 per pound, or $1,008. The Respondents received a total of $2,458 for load F 267, and had transportation cost of $1,202.50 on this load. On July 1, 1991, load F 269 of 43,710 pounds of watermelons was sold to the Respondent through his agent, Jim, for 4 per pound. This load was to be shipped to Rich Food, Richmond, VA. An annotation on the Bill of Laden indicates the load was returned to Respondent and subsequently dumped. The load was not inspected after refusal, and there is no evidence that the load did not grade to standard. Petitioner's testimony is uncontroverted, and there is no indication that the terms for these two loads were different from the earlier transactions between Petitioner and Respondent, that is, FOB the purchaser's truck at the seller's field with the farmer bearing the cost of picking. Under the terms of sale, FOB purchaser's truck at seller's field, the Respondent bore the costs of transportation and the risk of refusal of the produce. Respondent's recourse was against the purchaser who refused delivery. If there was a problem with the grade, the Respondents also bore the risk of loss on sales which they made and which were rejected. The Petitioner is entitled to his full purchase price on both loads: $1,748.40 on F 269 and $1,944 on F 267.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: Respondents be given 30 days to settle with the Petitioner in the amount of $3,692.40, and the Petitioner be paid $3,692.40 from Respondents' agricultural bond if the account is not settled. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry McDavid, Esquire 128 South Hernando Street Lake City, FL 32055 F. H. Dicks, III c/o F. H. Dicks Company P.O. Box 175 Barnwell, SC 29812 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 South Carolina Insurance Company Legal Department 1501 Lady Street Columbia, SC 29202 Victoria I. Freeman Seibels Bruce Insurance Companies Post Office Box One Columbia, SC 29202 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, and at the subsequent deposition, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, 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 Sales was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1983), issued license No. 4103 by the Department, and bonded by Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast (Hartford) in the sum of $20,000 Bond No. RN 4429948. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Hartford was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes (1983). On June 12, 1985, Respondent Sales, acting through its agent William C. Summers (Summers), contracted with Petitioner to purchase several loads of watermelons which were to be loaded by Petitioner on trucks furnished by Respondent Sales at Petitioner's watermelon field. Summers acting as Respondent Sales' agent had the authority to purchase, inspect, accept and pay for the watermelons. Petitioner agreed with Summers to load "field run" watermelons that were not "too big" or not "too small". Respondent did not request that the load be small, medium or large. Small being watermelons ranging in size from 11 to 17 pounds medium being watermelons ranging in size from 17 to 24 pounds and large being watermelons ranging in size from 24 to 40 pounds. Although Petitioner did not agree to furnish any specific grade of watermelon, the evidence shows that it was understood by Petitioner that Summers was contracting for "good quality" watermelons. On the second load Summers instructed the Petitioner to eliminate the large watermelons and this was done while harvesting and packing. The agreed upon price per pound of watermelons was $0.03 and the total price of each load of watermelons was to be determined by multiplying the price per pound by the net weight of each load of watermelons. The net weight of the load of watermelons in dispute was 46,260 pounds which when multiplied by $0.03 per pound equals a total price of $1,386.90 which Respondent Sales has refused to pay. Under the agreement it was Petitioner's responsibility to harvest and pack the watermelons on the trailer in accordance with Summers instructions but at Petitioner's expense, and it was Summers' responsibility to inspect the watermelons as to size and quality during the harvesting and packing and to reject any watermelons not conforming as to size and quality under the agreement. Upon the watermelons being loaded, inspected, accepted and weighed, the sale was to be final and Petitioner was to receive payment with title and risk of loss passing to Respondent Sales at point of shipment. Although Petitioner loaded approximately 2 1/2 loads of watermelons for Respondent Sales, only the last load or the second full load, which Petitioner started loading on June 12, 1985 and finished loading on June 13, 1985, is in dispute. On June 13, 1985, Summers issued a check on the account of Respondent Sales for payment of the 2 full loads of watermelons, which included payment for the load in dispute, but later that same day demanded that Petitioner return the check or Summers would stop payment on the check. Petitioner returned the check and was later paid for the first load but Respondent Sales has refused to pay for second load alleging that the quality of the watermelons did not conform to the agreement. There was no problem as to the size of the watermelons. Respondent Sales, after Summers accepted and issued the check for the watermelons in dispute, decided to make payment of the watermelons contingent on acceptance at destination rather than acceptance by Summers at the point of shipment as agreed earlier and refused to pay Petitioner for the watermelons in dispute because allegedly they had not been accepted at their destination. When advised of this change, Petitioner refused to sell any more watermelons to Respondent Sales. Although Respondent's exhibit 1 and 2 show that a load of watermelons loaded by Petitioner was federally inspected on June 17, 1985 at its destination, the evidence is insufficient to prove that the load of watermelons in dispute was inspected on June 17, 1985. In any event, only the condition of the watermelons was reported on the inspection report and no determination made by the inspector as to size, quality or grade, and there was no evidence to show that the condition of the watermelons at their destination would result in the watermelons failing to conform to the agreement; i.e., good quality. The watermelons were culled in the field during harvesting, at the trailer during packing and were additionally culled by Summers during the packing while he was present. Summers was not present full time while the watermelons were being harvested and loaded but was present on several occasions for periods up to 20 or 30 minutes for a total time of approximately 1 1/2 hours. Summers was allowed to inspect the watermelons in the field before harvesting and during harvesting and, in addition to the culling of the watermelon during harvesting and loading by Petitioner, Summers was allowed to cull, while he was present during loading. The evidence is sufficient to show that Summers had ample opportunity to inspect the watermelons and that he did inspect and accept the load of watermelons in dispute at point of shipment. The testimony of Petitioner and Bill Lamb that the watermelons in dispute were of the size and quality to conform to the agreement when loaded on the trailer on June 12 and 13, 1985 was credible.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Sales be ordered to pay to the Petitioners the sum of $1,386.90. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Sales fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then Respondent Hartford be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight, Chief License and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry McDavid, Esquire 200 North Marion Street. Lake City, Florida 32055 Robin C. Shiver Route 3, Box 248 Mayo, Florida 32066 Carl Boyles A. J. Sales Company P. O. Box 7798 Orlando, Florida 32854 Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral testimony and the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner, L. L. Hiers was a "producer" of agricultural products in the state of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. (Nichols) was a licensed "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, issued license number 1547 by the Department, and bonded by U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Fidelity) for the sum of $50,000.00 bond number 790103-10-115-88-1, with an effective date of March 22, 2988 and a termination date of March 22, 1989. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Nichols was authorized to do business in the state of Florida. The Complaint was timely filed by Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes. Prior to Petitioner selling or delivering any watermelons (melons) to Nichols, Petitioner and Nichols agreed verbally that: (a) Petitioner would sell Nichols melons on a per pound basis at a price to be quoted by Nichols on the day of shipment, (b) Petitioner would harvest and load the melons on trucks furnished by Nichols (c) a weight ticket with the weight of the truck before and after loading would be furnished to Petitioner; (d) Nichols or its agent in the field would have the authority to reject melons at the place of shipment (loading) which did not meet the quality or grade contracted for by Nichols; (e) the melons were to be of U.S. No. 1 grade and; (f) settlement was to be made within a reasonable time after shipment. Although Nichols assisted Petitioner in obtaining the crew to harvest and load the melons, Petitioner had authority over the crew and was responsible for paying the crew. On a daily basis, Petitioner would contact Nichols and obtain the price being paid for melons that day. The price was marked in the field book with the net weight of each load. Nichols contends that the price quoted each day was the general price melons were bringing on the market that day, but the price to be paid Petitioner was the price Nichols received for the melons at their destination minus a 1 cent per pound commission for Nichols, taking into consideration freight, if any. Nichols was not acting at Petitioner's agent in the sale of the melons for the account of the petitioner on a net return basis nor was Nichols acting as a negotiating broker between the Petitioner and the buyer. Nichols did not make the type of accounting to Petitioner as required by Section 604.22, Florida Statutes, had Nichols been Petitioner's agent. The prices quoted by Nichols to Petitioner each day was the agreed upon price to be paid for melons shipped that day subject to any adjustment for failure of the melons to meet the quality or grade contracted for by Nichols. On June 10, 1988, Petitioner contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 6 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of each truckload of melons shipped that day. Petitioner shipped 4 loads of melons on June 10, 1988 but only 3 loads are in dispute, as follows: (a) load no. 10891 weighing 45,830 lbs. for which Nichols paid 3 cents per pound; (b) load no. 10892 weighing 43,950 lbs. for which Nichols paid 5 cents per pound and; (c) load 10893 weighing 47,190 lbs. for which Nichols paid 5 cents per pound. On June 22, 1988, Petitioner contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid ford melons shipped that day was 5.25 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight the loads shipped that day. Only load no. 10174 weighing 44,550 lbs. for which Nichols paid 3 cents per pound is in dispute. On June 23, 1988, Petitioner contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 5.5 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of the loads shipped that day. Two loads were shipped, but only load no. 11227 weighing 48,490 pounds for which Nichols paid 5 cents per lbs. is in dispute. The differences in the price paid for each load and the agreed upon price are as follows: (a) load no. 10891-$1324.90; (b) load no. 10892-$479.50; (c) load no. 10893-$471.90; (d) load no. 11174-$891.00 and; (c) load no. 11227- $242.45. The total amount in dispute is $3,419.75. Nichols contends that load no. 10891 was rejected because it failed to pass government inspection due to quality, and that the quality of load nos. 10982, 10893, 1174 and 1122 was poor, resulting in a lower price than the price agreed upon. There was insufficient evidence to support this contention. Nichols has refused to pay Petitioner the difference between the agreed upon price for load nos. 10891, 10892, 10893, 11174 and 11227 and the price paid by Nichols as indicated on the settlement sheet. The difference is $3,419.75, and is owed to Petitioner by Nichols.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. be ordered to pay to Petitioner, L. L. Hiers the sum of $3,419.75. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. fails to timely pay Petitioner, L. L. Hiers as ordered, then Respondent, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. be ordered to pay the Department as required by section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl Hiers, Qualified Representative Route 5, Box 339 Dunnellon, Florida 32630 Steve Nichols, Vice President Jay Nichols, Inc. Qualified Representative Post Office Box 1705 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203
The Issue The 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.
The Issue This case arises from a complaint filed by Jay Nelson and Ernest Leclercq, d/b/a Sun Coast Farms, in which it is asserted that H. M. Shield, Inc., is indebted to the Complainants in the amount of $7,266.20 for agricultural products sold to the Respondent. At the hearing the representative for the Complainant stated that most of the matters asserted in the complaint had been resolved by settlement, but that six items remained in dispute and that the total amount remaining in dispute was $1,041.20. Ms. Ernst testified as a witness for the Complainant and also offered several documents as exhibits, which documents were marked as a composite exhibit and received in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witness and on the exhibits offered and received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: On February 23, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans, Wax Beans, and Zukes (Lot No. 1116) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $327.00 on this sale. On March 8, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Wax Beans (Lot No. 1294) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $184.20 on this sale. On March 8, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Wax Beans (Lot No. 1295) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $184.20 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1453) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $202.50 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1454) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $110.00 on this sale. On March 19, 1984, the Complainant sold agricultural products consisting of Snap Beans and Zukes (Lot No. 1457) to the Respondent. At the time of the hearing there was still unpaid and owing the amount of $202.50. The total amount owed for agricultural products by the Respondent to the Complainant, which amount was unpaid as of the time of the hearing, is $1,401.20.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered directing H. M. Shield, Inc., to pay Jay Nelson and Ernest Leclercq, d/b/a Sun Coast Farms, the amount of $1,401.20 for the agricultural products described in the findings of fact, above. In the event the Respondent fails to make such payment within 15 days of the Final Order, it is recommended that the surety be required to pay pursuant to the bond. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 6th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Nelson & Ernest Leclercq d/b/a Sun Coast Farms P.O. Box 3064 Florida City, Florida 33034 H. M. Shield, Inc. Room 82 State Farmer's Market Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners and the Respondent had a business relationship under which the Respondent purchased watermelons from the Petitioners during the 1978 harvest season. Watermelons are at times sold on a "cash basis", which means that a buyer purchases the melons at the field for a set price per pound. At other times watermelons are sold on a "handle basis" or a "brokerage basis". Under these arrangements a buyer picks up a load of melons, sells it at the best obtainable price, and a portion of the sale price goes to the producer and a portion to the buyer. Prior to the 1978 harvest season, the Petitioners had had some unhappy experiences selling watermelons on a "handle" or "brokerage" basis. They decided to sell melons during the 1978 season only on a cash basis. The Respondent purchased several loads from the Petitioners during 1978 on a cash basis. A dispute arose as to four loads of melons which the Respondent purchased from the Petitioners late in the 1978 harvest season. The Petitioners understood that the transactions would continue to be on a cash basis. The Respondent, who was represented by W.B. Stevens in the transactions, appears to have had the honest belief that the transactions would be on a brokerage basis. Mr. Stevens did not, however, reduce the brokerage arrangement to writing, and he did not adequately advise the Petitioners that the terms of the transactions would be different from previous transactions that year. The four transactions were as follows: On May 30, 1978, the Respondent purchased 2,000 Grey watermelons which weighed 44,650 pounds at a quoted price of 4.75 cents per pound. On June 2, 1978, the Respondent purchased 1,330 Jubilee watermelons which weighed 45,470 pounds at 5.25 cents per pound. On June 5, 1978, the Respondent purchased 1,560 Grey watermelons which weighed 40,080 pounds at a quoted price of 4.50 cents per pound, and 1,550 Jubilee watermelons which weighed 44,100 pounds at a quoted price of 5.00 cents per pound. The total amount the Respondent owed the Petitioners for these four loads was $8,516.66. The Respondent issued the Petitioners a check for the loads in the amount of $5,453.72. The Petitioners are thus owed an additional $3,062.94. The Respondent offered several affidavits into evidence. These were identified for the record as Respondent's Exhibits 1-5, but they were rejected. Even if the affidavits had been admissible, they would not serve to alter the findings of fact set out herein. The affidavits identified as Respondent's Exhibits 1, 3 and 4 relate to the quality of the watermelons. Since it has been found that the melons were sold on a cash basis, the Respondent took ownership of the melons when they were loaded onto the Respondent's trucks. The quality of the melons would not, therefore, affect the amount the Respondent owed the Petitioners. If the Respondent were going to reject the melons, it should have done so when they were loaded onto the trucks. The affidavit which was identified as Respondent's Exhibit 2 relates to a truck shortage that existed in Florida at the time that the Petitioners' melons were harvested. While this affidavit may tend to support the Respondent's contention that it intended these loads to be sold on a brokerage basis, it does not alter the fact that the Respondent did not adequately communicate this understanding to the Petitioners. The affidavit which was marked as Respondent's Exhibit 5 is unsigned. Furthermore, it relates only that Mr. Stevens believed that the transactions would be handled on a brokerage basis. The affidavits are hearsay and are not cumulative of other evidence in this case. They are therefore inadmissible. Even if the affidavits were admissible, however, they would have no relevance to the issues. The Respondent is licensed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as an agricultural commodity dealer. The Respondent has a $20,000 bond on file with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services finding that the Petitioners are entitled to $3,062.94 in additional compensation for agricultural commodities which they sold to the Respondent, and requiring the Respondent to pay this sum to the Petitioners. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. W. B. Stevens President Eastern Marketing Services, Inc. P.O. Box 2156 Bartow, Florida 33830 Mr. Thomas H. Mancil P.O. Box 303 Clewiston, Florida 33840 L. Earl Peterson, Chief Bureau of License & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert A. Chastain General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue is whether respondent is indebted to petitioner in the amount $5,838.59 as alleged in the complaint filed on September 19, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Bo Bass, is a watermelon farmer in Alachua County, Florida. Respondent, Hapco Farms, Inc., is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products having been issued License No. 8456 by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. As required by state law, respondent has posted a $75,000 bond written by Insurance Company of North America, as surety, to assure proper accounting and payment to producers. Freddie Bell is also a watermelon farmer who operates under the name of B & G Produce. That firm is located in Williston, Florida. According to petitioner, whenever Bell has extra trucks during watermelon season, he will load petitioner’s watermelons on those trucks, deliver them to B & G Produce’s shed for packing, and then sell them to various dealers. Upon collection of the moneys for the sale of such produce, Bell would then pay petitioner. On June 17, 18 and 19, 1996, petitioner verbally agreed to entrust four loads of watermelons to B & G Produce for resale to third parties. Petitioner expected to be paid six cents per pound for his produce. On the same dates, respondent, through its field buyer, entered into an agreement with B & G Produce, but not petitioner, for the purchase of four loads of watermelons. The weight bills for those shipments reflect that, while Bo Bass was the grower on two of those shipments, B & G Produce was the seller of all four loads. After the watermelons were sold to respondent and transported to its customers, a federal inspection determined that a number of watermelons were overripe and rotten. Because of this, a portion of the loads was “dumped.” This in turn reduced the amount of money due the seller. However, respondent made a proper accounting and payment to B & G Produce, and no claim has been filed by the seller against respondent. When petitioner ultimately received only $4,691.30 from B & G Produce, he filed a complaint against respondent seeking an additional $5,838.59. There is no competent evidence that petitioner ever entered into an agreement to sell his watermelons to respondent. Therefore, if petitioner has a dispute over any moneys allegedly due, it lies with Bell, and not respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order denying petitioner’s claim against the bond of respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 31st day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Bo Bass 2829 Southwest State Road 45 Newberry, Florida 32669 Andrew B. Hellinger, Esquire First Union Financial Center, Suite 2350 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2328 Insurance Company of North America 1601 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19192 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $5,640.19 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is surety for Respondent Griffin d/b/a Quality. Petitioners' claims against the dealer and his bond are listed in the Amended Complaint in the following amounts and categories: 6-18-92 Inv. #657 45,580 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $2,279.00 Advance - 700.00 NWPB* - 9.12 $1,569.88 6-19-92 Inv. #668 2,490 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 124.50 (paid for 42,860 lbs. short 2,490 lbs.) NWPB* - .50 124.00 6-20-92 Inv. #695 6,818 lbs. Crimson melons @ .05 lb. $ 340.90 (paid for 39,062 lbs. short 6,818 lbs.) NWPB* 1.36 339.54 6-20-92 Inv. @ #702 .05 39,880 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $1,994.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 7.98 Pmt. - 90.00 1,186.02 6-21-92 Inv. @ #706 .05 44,740 lbs. Sangria melons lb. $2,237.00 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 8.95 1,518.05 6-22-93 Inv. @ #716 .04 11,280 lbs. Crimson melons lb. NWPB* - 2.32 460.88 6-22-92 Inv. @ #709 .04 46,740 lbs. Crimson melons lb. $1,869.60 Advance - 700.00 Packing Straw - 10.00 NWPB* - 9.35 1,150.25 Deducted for #706 - 441.82 441.82 PAID 708.43 Total Claimed $5,640.19 *NWPB = National Watermelon Promotion Board Fee Petitioners and Respondent dealer have had an oral business relationship for four to five years. Both parties agree that their oral agreement initially called for a federal inspection to be done on each load if the load were refused in whole or in part by the ultimate recipient. Respondent Griffin contended that over the years there had been further oral agreements to "work out" or "ride out" small discrepancies or partial refusals of loads without resorting to federal inspections, the cost of which inspections could eliminate the entire profit on single loads. Petitioners denied that such an amended oral agreement was ever reached and further maintained that the amounts of the loads at issue herein could not be considered "small" by any interpretation. Respondent submitted no evidence as to what the relative terms, "large" and "small," mean in the industry. Consequently, it appears that there was never a meeting of the minds of the parties on the alleged oral contract amendments relied upon by Respondent. Respondent testified that in past years, prior to 1992, he had interpreted the term "ride it out" to mean that he would simply accept the hearsay statements of ultimate recipients that named poundages of melons were bad and he would let the ultimate recipients pay for only the melons they said were good. Respondent would thereafter absorb any losses himself, not passing on the loss by deducting any amount from the full amount he would normally pay to the growers within ten days. However, 1992 was such a bad year for melons that the Respondent dealer chose not to absorb the greater losses and passed them on to the growers by way of deductions on "settlement sheets." In 1992 Respondent sent Petitioners the settlement sheets with the deductions explained thereon with the net payments as much as thirty days after the ultimate sales. Upon the foregoing evidence, it appears that Respondent had established a course of business whereby Petitioners could reasonably have expected him to absorb any losses occasioned by Respondent's reliance on hearsay statements of the ultimate recipients concerning poor quality melons unless Respondent chose not to test the questionable melons with a federal inspection. Petitioners obtained Exhibit P-5 for load 657 at Respondent dealer's place of business, but were not certain it applied to the load Mr. Tucker claimed he delivered to Respondent on 6-18-92 because Mr. Tucker did not know his load number that day. The exhibit represents the weight ticket Petitioners believe applies to the load which Mr. Tucker claimed to have delivered to Respondent dealer on 6-18-92. However, the exhibit bears two other names, "Jones and Smith," not Petitioners' respective names of Tucker or Watson. It has "WACC" handwritten across it, which Mr. Tucker claimed signified the name of his watermelon field. The number "657" also has been handwritten across it. There is no evidence of who wrote any of this on the exhibit. Respondent denied that load 657 was received from Mr. Tucker. The exhibit shows a printed gross weight of 78,900 lbs., tare weight of 32,860 lbs. and net weight of 66,800 lbs. Net weights are supposed to signify the poundage of melons delivered to the dealer. Nothing on the exhibit matches Mr. Tucker's journal entry (Petitioners' Exhibit 3) of delivering 45,580 lbs. of watermelons to Respondent dealer on 6- 18-92. Mr. Tucker testified that he was never paid for his delivery. Respondent denied there was such a delivery and testified that he paid Jones and Smith for load 657. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $1,569.88 on Invoice 657. Petitioners' Exhibit P-4 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records that Petitioners contend apply to load 668. The first page has "45,350/6-19-92/Scott Tucker WACC" handwritten across it. None of the four poundages imprinted thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 668, and subtracting amounts testified to also does not conform these figures to Petitioners' claim on load 668. The second page weight ticket shows a date of 6-18-92 and a weight of 34,260 lbs. It also does not match Petitioner's claim that they were owed for 45,350 lbs. but were paid for only 42,860 lbs., being paid 2,490 lbs. short. Exhibit P-8 is the 668 invoice/settlement sheet which Respondent provided to Petitioners and shows invoice 668 with date of 6-19-92, tare and pay weight of 42,860 lbs. at $.05/lb. for $2,143.00 less $8.57 melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB, see supra) for $2,134.43, less a $700.00 advance and $10.00 for packing straw for a total due Petitioners of $1,424.43 which Respondent has already paid. Petitioners have established no entitlement to their claim of $124.00 on Invoice 668. Petitioners Exhibit P-6 represents two weight tickets secured from Respondent dealer's records. The first page has "45,880 lbs./6-20-92/Scott Tucker Crimson WACC 695" handwritten across it. None of the printed gross, tare, or net weights thereon match any of the amounts claimed by Petitioners for invoice 695. The second page shows the date 6-20-92 and a printed net weight of 32,000 lbs. Respondent dealer provided Petitioners with Exhibit P-7, invoice/settlement sheet 695 dated 6-20-92 showing tare and pay weights of 39,062 lbs. priced at $.05/lb. totalling $1,953.10, less melon adv. assoc. (a/k/a NWPB) fee of $7.81, for $1,945.29, less $700.00 advanced, less $10.00 for packing straw for a total of $1,235.29. The foregoing do not support Petitioner Tucker's claim based on his journal entry (P-3) that he was entitled to be paid for 45,880 lbs. he claims he delivered that day instead of for 39,062 pounds (short by 6,818 pounds) with balance owing to him of $339.54. Respondent has paid what was owed on invoice 695. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 9 shows that Petitioner Tucker delivered 39,880 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-20-92 and Petitioner Watson received back from Respondent dealer an invoice/settlement sheet 702 showing 39,880 pounds @ $.05/lb. equalling $1,994.00 and that although $1,994.00 was owed Petitioners, Respondent thereafter subtracted for $800.00 worth of returned melons, a $700.00 advance, $7.98 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), and $10.00 for packing straw, and that a balance was paid to Petitioners of only $90.00. This is arithmetically illogical. The subtractions total $1,517.98. Therefore, if all of Respondent's subtractions were legitimate, the total balance due Petitioners would have been $476.02. If the right to deduct for the $800.00 in returned melons were not substantiated by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners would be due $1,276.02. Since all parties acknowledge that $90.00 was already paid by Respondent dealer, then Petitioners are due $1,186.02 if Respondent did not substantiate the right to deduct the $800.00. Load 702 was "graded out," i.e. accepted as satisfactory, by a representative of Respondent dealer or a subsequent holder in interest when the melons were delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer. That fact creates the presumption that the melons were received in satisfactory condition by the Respondent dealer. Nothing persuasive has been put forth by the Respondent dealer to show that the situation concerning the melons' quality had changed by the time the load arrived at its final destination. Respondent got no federal inspection on this load and relied on hearsay statements by persons who did not testify as to some melons being inferior. In light of the standard arrangement of the parties over the whole course of their business dealings (see Findings of Fact 5-7 supra), Petitioners have proven entitlement to the amount claimed on load 702 of $1,186.02. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite 10 shows Petitioners Tucker and Watson delivered 44,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-21-92. At $.05/lb., Petitioners were owed $2,237.00, less melon adv. association fee (a/k/a NWPB) of $8.95, $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for straw. Those deductions are not at issue. Therefore, Petitioners would be owed $1,518.05, the amount claimed, from Respondent. However, the invoice also notes that Respondent made a $268.18 deduction for melons returned. Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1 purports to be a BB&W Farms Loading Sheet and Federal Inspection Sheet. Respondent offered this exhibit to show that only $68.18 was realized by him on load 706 which he attributed to Petitioner Watson. However, the federal inspector did not testify as to the results of the inspection, the inspection sheet itself is illegible as to "estimated total," the "estimated total" has been written in by another hand as "$62.60," and there was no explanation on the Composite Exhibit or in testimony as to how Respondent dealer came up with $200.00 in "return lumping charges" as also indicated on Exhibit R-1. Accordingly, Petitioners have established that with regard to load/invoice 706, they delivered watermelons worth $2,237.00 to Respondent dealer and Respondent dealer did not affirmatively establish that any melons were bad, despite the federal inspection sheet introduced in evidence. Petitioners have proven entitlement to their claim on invoice 706 for $1,518.05. However, Petitioners conceded that Respondent actually paid them $441.82 on invoice/settlement sheet 706. Therefore, they are only entitled to recoup a total of $1,076.23 on their claim for Invoice 706. In the course of formal hearing, Respondent dealer admitted that, with regard to load invoice 716, (Tucker) he did owe Petitioners $460.88 for 275 watermelons, and that it had not been paid purely due to clerical error. By oral agreement at formal hearing, Petitioners' Composite Exhibit 12 (Invoice and Weight Tickets 709, Watson) shows Petitioner Watson delivered 46,740 lbs. of melons to Respondent dealer on 6-22-92 and at $.04 lb., Petitioners were owed $1,869.60, less appropriate deductions. Petitioners conceded that Respondent dealer appropriately deducted $9.35 for melon adv. association (a/k/a NWPB), $700.00 for an advance, and $10.00 for packing straw, bringing the amount they were owed to $1,150.25. Petitioners and Respondent are in agreement the Respondent paid only $708.43 of the $1,150.25 owed on invoice/settlement sheet 709 because Respondent dealer also deducted from the amount owed on invoice 709 the $441.82 he had previously paid out on Invoice 706. See, Finding of Fact 13, supra. Since Petitioners have established that they were owed $1,518.05 on invoice 706 but were paid only $441.82 thereon, it appears that Petitioners should be paid $1,076.23 on Invoice 706 and realize nothing on Invoice 709.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order awarding Petitioners $1,186.02 on invoice 702, $1,076.23 on invoice 706, and $460.88 on invoice 716 for a total of $2,723.13, dismissing all other claimed amounts, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $2,723.13, which in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company's case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Tucker and Phillip Watson Route 2 Box 280 Trenton, FL 32693 Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage Post Office Box 889 Immokalee, FL 33934 William J. Moore USF&G Post Office Box 31143 Tampa, FL 33631 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., is indebted to the Petitioner Raiford Dunn for agricultural products purchased by the Respondent from the Petitioner. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION By complaint filed with the Bureau of License and Bond, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, on October 7, 1986, and submitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 21, 1986, for hearing, the Petitioner seeks payment of a balance due on watermelons sold and delivered to Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., on June 17, 18, and 19, 1986. At the hearing the Petitioner and the representative for the Respondent Lapide both testified and both presented the testimony of other witnesses. The Petitioner and the Respondent Lapide also both offered exhibits which were received in evidence. Following the hearing, none of the parties ordered a transcript of the proceedings. Further, none of the parties have filed any post- hearing proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law as allowed by Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties stipulations, on the testimony at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence I make the following findings of fact. l. The Respondent Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., is a New York corporation. It is a licensed dealer in agricultural products, having been issued license number 1274. For the time period in question, Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., had a bond posted through Peerless Insurance Company in the amount of $50,000.00. The bond number was RG-30-44. The Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products, specifically watermelons. The Petitioner has been raising watermelons for approximately 25 years. The Petitioner knows Mr. Lawrence J. Lapide and has had business dealings with Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., on several occasions during the past 4 or 5 years. During 1986 the Petitioner sold three loads of watermelons to Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., prior to the four loads which are the subject of this case. (The parties do not have any disputes about the three earlier loads.) During June of 1986, Mr. Lawrence J. Lapide met with the Petitioner to discuss the purchase of watermelons. Mr. Lapide, acting on behalf of Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., agreed to buy four loads of watermelons. Mr. Lapide purchased 3 loads of small watermelons (referred to as "dinks") at 3 cents per pound and l load of medium watermelons at 5 cents per pound. When the watermelons were loaded and weighed, the totals were as follows: Pig # 676086 43,290 pounds x 3 cents $1,298.70 Pig # 677969 47,980 pounds x 3 cents $1,439.40 Pig # 676036 43,910 pounds x 3 cents $1,317.30 Pig # 677047 45,640 pounds x 5 cents $2,282.00 Thus, the total agreed price for the four loads of watermelons was $6,337.40. When the Petitioner and Mr. Lapide agreed to the sale of the four loads of watermelons, the terms of the sale included an understanding that the transaction was F.O.B. at Sumterville, Florida. The agreement between the parties included an understanding that Mr. Lapide would provide the trailers to haul the watermelons and Mr. Lapide would pay all transportation charges for the watermelons. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, payment for the watermelons was due "when they moved over the scale," i.e., as soon as the trucks were loaded and weighed. Finally, the evidence shows that the agreement between the parties was to the effect that title and risk of loss to the watermelons passed to the Respondent Lapide on shipment, with all remedies and rights for the Petitioner's breach reserved to the Respondent Lapide. The watermelons in question were loaded on June 17, 18, and 19, 1986, on trailers provided by Mr. Lapide. Pursuant to Mr. Lapide's request, as soon as each truck was loaded, the Petitioner called the transportation company to advise them that the melons were loaded and ready to be shipped. When the watermelons were loaded, they were in good marketable condition and if anthractnose rot was present on the watermelons, it was not visible at the time of loading. During the week of June 16, 1986, the Petitioner loaded watermelons for Mr. James Hill at the same time he was loading watermelons for the Respondent Lapide. The watermelons loaded for Mr. Hill came from the same fields as the watermelons loaded for the Respondent Lapide. Mr. Hill did not have any problems with the loads of watermelons he bought from the Petitioner during the week of June 16, 1986. Two of the loads of watermelons received by the Respondent Lapide were not inspected when received in New York. Those two loads contained saleable watermelons although an unspecified percentage of the watermelons in the two uninspected loads were unsaleable. The Respondent Lapide sold watermelons from the two uninspected loads. Two of the loads of watermelons received by the Respondent Lapide were inspected after they were received in New York. The inspections showed that one load contained anthractnose rot in various stages in 44 percent of the watermelons and that the other load contained anthractnose rot in various stages in 79 percent of the watermelons. The Respondent Lapide dumped the last two loads of watermelons. The Respondent Lapide has previously paid the Petitioner $1,500.00 of the amount due for the four loads of watermelons in question.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $4,837.40. It is further recommended that if the Respondent Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc., fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, :the Respondent Peerless Insurance Company then be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Harris, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence J. Lapide, Inc. 3 Willshire Court Freeport, New York 11236 Peerless Insurance Company 62 Maple Avenue Keene, New Hampshire 03431 Ted Helms, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Lawrence J. Marchbanks, Esquire MARCHBANKS & FEAN 4700 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 101 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Hon. Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 =================================================================
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $10,258.98, or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and his surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is surety for Respondent Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage. This cause is governed by the claims made in the amended complaint. (Exhibit P-13) That amended complaint sets out the parameters of the claimed amounts as follows: AGREED PRICE PAID PRICE DIFFERENCE CLAIMED 6-13-92 Inv.#573 45,429 lbs. Jub. melons @ .04/lb.$1,816.80 (paid on 41,720 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.08 1,107.72 950.46 157.26 6-14-92 Inv.#586 48,060 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,403.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.61 1,693.39 1,202.79 490.60 6-14-92 Inv.#587 50,610 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,530.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 10.12 1,820.38 1,304.28 516.10 6-15-92 Inv.#592 44,800 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,240.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.96 1,531.04 1,153.04 378.00 6-15-92 Inv.#593 46,340 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,317.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.27 1,607.73 1,144.33 463.40 6-16-92 Inv.#598 47,170 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,358.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.43 1,649.07 1,177.37 471.70 6-16-92 Inv.#607 48,320 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,416.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.66 1,706.34 1,223.14 483.20 6-17-92 Inv.#628 1/ 40,890 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,044.50 (no inv.# provided producer) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.18 1,336.32 .00 1,336.32 6-17-92 Inv.#626 36,690 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 1,834.50 (paid on 27,890 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 7.34 1,127.16 688.92 438.24 6-17-92 Inv.#627 37,300 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 1,865.00 (paid on 30,500 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 7.46 1,157.54 818.90 338.64 6-17-92 Inv.#642 43,350 lbs. Job. melons @ .05/lb. 2,167.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.67 1,458.83 1,025.33 433.50 6-18-92 Inv.#643 44,150 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,207.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.83 1,498.67 1,057.17 441.50 6-18-92 Inv.#644 45,060 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,253.00 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.01 1,543.99 .00 1,543.99 6-18-92 Inv.#646 43,180 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,159.00 (paid on 38,380 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.64 1,450.36 1,211.32 239.04 6-18-92 Inv.645 47,070 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,353.50 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.41 1,644.09 .00 1,644.09 6-19-92 Inv.#663 43,520 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,176.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.70 1,467.30 1,032.10 435.20 6-19-92 Inv.#685 44,820 Crim. melons lbs. @ .05/lb. 2,241.00 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.96 1,532.04 1,083.84 448.20 TOTAL DUE $10,258.98 The amended complaint admits that Respondent's deductions for advances and NWPB were appropriate on each load/invoice, and these are not in contention. The amended complaint admits that Respondent has already made the payments to Petitioners, which are indicated. It is only the claimed shortfall on each load that is at issue. At formal hearing, Petitioners discussed a load they claimed they had delivered to Respondent on 6-20-92. They had neither receipts, weight tickets, nor settlement sheets, (invoices) nor payment from Respondent on this load. This "lost load," as the parties described it, is not named in the amended complaint. Therefore, no findings of fact can be made thereon, due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 appears to apply to loads 560, 561, 562, and 563, all loads occurring on 6-11-92. That date and those load numbers also are not listed in the amended complaint. Accordingly, no findings of fact will be made with regard to loads 560, 561, 562 or 563, due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners delineated two theories of recovery as to the seventeen claims actually named in the amended complaint. Petitioners claimed the right to recover from Respondents due to Respondent dealer's failure to pay for all or some of the poundage delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer on the following loads: 6-13-92 #573, 6-17-92 #628, 6-17-92 #626, 6-17-92 #627, 6-18-92 #644, 6-18-92 #646, 6-18-92 #645, 6- 19-92 #685. Petitioners claim the right to recover from Respondents due to Respondent dealer's failure to pay per pound at the rate of one cent below the "wire price" per pound on the following loads: 6-14-92 #586, 6-14-92 #587, 6- 15-92 #592, 6-15-92 #593, 6-16-92 #598, 6-16-92 #607, 6-17-92 #642, 6-18-92 #643, and 6-19-92 #663. For 6-15-92 18-24 lb. average 4.50 - 5.00 cents, few 6.00 26-32 lb. average 4.50 - 5.00 cents, few 6.00 For 6-16-92 18-24 lb. average 5.00 - 6.00 cents 26-32 lb. average 5.00 - 6.00 cents For 6-17-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 cents, few higher and lower 26-32 lb. average 6.00 cents, few higher and lower For 6-18-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, "Wire prices" are printed in "spread" form. Evidence was presented (Composite Exhibit P-14), and the parties are agreed, that the following were the "wire prices" at certain times material. Otherwise, there is no evidence in this record concerning amounts or dates of "wire prices." mostly 6.00, few higher 26-32 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, mostly 6.00, few higher and lower For 6-19-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, mostly 6.00, few higher 26-32 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents mostly 6.00, few higher and lower Since no "wire prices" were proven up for the days involved in loads 586, and 587, Petitioners are not entitled to recover on their theory of entitlement for those loads. Upon the allegations of the amended complaint and the "wire prices" proven, it appears that Petitioners have already received payment from Respondent dealer at one cent (or better) below the proven low-end "wire price" on loads 592, 593, 598, and 607. Therefore, Petitioners are not entitled to recover on their theory of entitlement for those loads. Petitioners (grower-producers) believed that they had negotiated an oral contract with Respondent dealer to the effect that the dealer would pay Petitioners at the rate of one cent below the "wire price" per pound on those days that Respondent took delivery from them of their watermelons. Respondent testified contrariwise that although such an arrangement was discussed, the parties' final oral agreement was concluded in terms of an excellent quality of every melon, and after negotiations were completed, the dealer understood that the price he was to pay the producers was just the same price per pound he paid all his other producers on any given day. In determining the daily uniform price per pound, Respondent admitted that he used the "wire price" as a guideline, but never explained exactly how the "wire price" constituted a guideline. The Petitioners and Respondent dealer had dealt with one another over a period of years. In past years they had discussed what was to occur if any loads were refused, in whole or in part, by retail buyers at their ultimate destinations. Over the years, the parties had agreed that for loads involving a "small deduct," that is, a small amount of refused melons, Respondent had unilateral authority to informally agree to dump the bad melons or take whatever he could get for the load and pass on the monetary loss to Petitioners. Petitioners conceded that the discretion to take or not take such losses always had been entirely that of Respondent during the parties' several years of past dealing, and that before 1992, whenever an ultimate recipient had refused melons, the "deduct" had been "worked out" this way with no prior notice to Petitioners. In short, by Petitioners' own evidence, it appears that up until the loads at issue in 1992, Petitioners had always simply accepted the Respondent's calculations concerning refusals for quality without requiring proof by way of a federal inspection. Mr. Randal Roberts Sr. testified that in his opinion, any "deduct" over 300 pounds was not "small." However, no evidence defining an industry standard for the relative terms of "small deducts" or "large deducts" was introduced. In light of the parties' standard arrangement over the whole course of their business dealings, it is deemed that Respondent continued to be within his rights in 1992 to unilaterally decide which melons to pay Petitioners for and which melons not to pay Petitioners for where quality became an issue between himself and the ultimate recipients. Petitioners estimated that on a scale of one to ten, the melons they had delivered to Respondent dealer in 1992 were "about a seven" when they delivered them to him, even though Respondent's agents culled out the really bad melons. It may be inferred therefrom that the loads were no better and were probably in worse condition when they reached their ultimate destinations. Respondent testified that he had dumped all or part of the remaining loads in question or reduced the price per pound from that of the "wire price" due to the poor quality of the melons based on complaints or refusals by the recipients when the melons reached their ultimate destinations. These are loads 573, 628, 626, 627, 644, 646, 645, 685, 642, 643, and 663. Although Petitioners adamantly denied that they had ever agreed to rely on federal inspections to determine which melons were bad and which were good, Respondent had gotten federal inspection sheets (R-2) to support his decision to dump all or part of loads 628, 643, 645, 663, and 685. Respondent dealer introduced his business journal (R-3) to show that load 643 was "bad" and load 644 was "dumped" due to poor quality. Respondent dealer introduced his contemporaneous business journal (R- 3) to show that except for loads 607, 643, 644, 663, and 685 he had paid as much to Petitioners per pound as to anyone else on the respective days he had taken delivery. On those loads he had paid Petitioners less than some other producers whom he dealt with on those days, but contended that he had reduced the price per pound paid to Petitioners on those days on the basis of poor quality, too. Nonetheless, 607 was paid at least at one cent below the "wire price" (See Finding of Fact 14), 643 was shown bad by inspection, 644 was dumped in its entirety per the dealer's journal, and 663 and 685 were shown bad by inspection. Upon the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent was within the parameters of his standard dealings with Petitioners where he reduced the price per pound of loads 643 and 663 on the basis of quality, just as he was within his clear unilateral authority and discretion to dump or discard whole melons from loads 628, 644, 645, and 685. After accounting for the foregoing loads, that leaves only loads 573, 626, 627, and 646 left in issue as to poundage and only load 642, (for which Respondent paid 4 cents per pound instead of one cent below the "spread" of the "wire price" for that day) at issue as to price per pound. As to each of these loads, Respondent produced business records wherein he had made contemporaneous notations concerning the quality complaints and/or number of melons rejected by the ultimate recipients. (R-2) Respondent did not pay Petitioners anything on load 645 because of freight deductions and Respondent also made freight deductions on some other invoices. There is no evidence in this record regarding how the parties had negotiated who would bear the ultimate cost of the freight. However, the Petitioners have not proven any entitlement to recover these charges which Respondent advanced and paid. Likewise, Petitioners also have not set out any trail by which the undersigned can trace any mathematical errors on any loads/settlement sheets to the Respondent dealer over Petitioners. Under the parties' standard mode of doing business, Respondent had clear unilateral authority and discretion to dump or discard whole melons for quality and pay Petitioners nothing for the whole melons dumped or discarded in loads 573, 626, 627, and 646. Upon the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent was also within the parameters of his standard dealings with Petitioners in not paying full negotiated price per pound on load 642 where some lesser price per pound could be negotiated with the ultimate recipient as to quality.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order dismissing all named claims against Respondents. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1993.
