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 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
The Issue The issue that came on for hearing in this case is whether the Respondent, Quality Melon Sales, Inc., properly accounted for produce either sold or cosigned by the Petitioner, Agro House Farms.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner though its authorized representatives, entered into an oral agreement with Mr. Mack Fulmer, President and General Manager of Quality Melon Inc. to buy or a quality of cucumbers remaining in Petitioner's Greenhouse. At the time of the oral agreement, neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent discussed the brokerage fee due the Respondent on the sale of such cucumbers. On or about the time of the brokerage agreement, the Respondent entered into negotiations with the Petitioner regarding the sale and/or management of Petitioner's business. The Respondent was sent five shipments of cucumbers by the Petitioner which were sold in the Canadian market. On each of these shipments, the Petitioner was charged a brokerage fee of from $1.00 to $1.60 per box of produce sold. The Respondent charges a minimum of $1.00 per box for packing and handling produce. The first shipment of cucumbers were not sold on account but were purchased by the Respondent from Mr. John Shirley. the Petitioner's Manager. The Respondent agreed to pay five dollars a box for the initial shipment of cucumbers. After receipt of the initial shipment the Respondent contacted Mr. Shirley and requested a $1.00, credit per box which was agreed to. The four subsequent shipments of cucumbers were sold on account rather than purchased outright by the Respondent. On the first shipment, Invoice #1159, the Petitioner is entitled to $1,580.00 for 395 boxes of cucumbers @ $4.00 per box rather than the $3.50 per box paid by the Respondent. On Invoice #1159, the difference between the amount paid and owed is $197.50. ($1,580.00 - $1,382.50 = $197.50. The accounting on the remaining Invoices Numbers 1160, 1161, 1162 and 1163 is correct and represents the amount the Respondent received from the produce minus brokerage, handling and shipping charges ranging from $1.00 to $1.60 per box. As part of the final accounting the Respondent set off certain charges for items bought by the Petitioner which included for rolls of plastic, seeds, a cash advance, transportation for tires, four phone calls, fertilizer and an attorneys fee. At the final hearing, the Petitioner agreed to all of the charges except the attorneys fee in the amount of $400.00. The claim for the attorneys fee arose out of a separate transaction involving the sale of the business to the Respondent. This deduction was not authorized by the Petitioner and is not entitled to be set off by the Respondent except pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter an order finding that the Petitioner is due the amount of $687.38 from the sale of the agricultural products which were the subject of this administrative proceeding. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Fulford, Jr. Agro House Farms, Inc. Post Office Box 1106 Umatilla Florida 32784 Richard A. Wagner, Esquire Rodgers Wagner & Satava Suite 405, Meltcalfe Building 100 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $10,258.98, or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and his surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is surety for Respondent Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage. This cause is governed by the claims made in the amended complaint. (Exhibit P-13) That amended complaint sets out the parameters of the claimed amounts as follows: AGREED PRICE PAID PRICE DIFFERENCE CLAIMED 6-13-92 Inv.#573 45,429 lbs. Jub. melons @ .04/lb.$1,816.80 (paid on 41,720 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.08 1,107.72 950.46 157.26 6-14-92 Inv.#586 48,060 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,403.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.61 1,693.39 1,202.79 490.60 6-14-92 Inv.#587 50,610 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,530.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 10.12 1,820.38 1,304.28 516.10 6-15-92 Inv.#592 44,800 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,240.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.96 1,531.04 1,153.04 378.00 6-15-92 Inv.#593 46,340 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,317.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.27 1,607.73 1,144.33 463.40 6-16-92 Inv.#598 47,170 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,358.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.43 1,649.07 1,177.37 471.70 6-16-92 Inv.#607 48,320 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,416.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.66 1,706.34 1,223.14 483.20 6-17-92 Inv.#628 1/ 40,890 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,044.50 (no inv.# provided producer) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.18 1,336.32 .00 1,336.32 6-17-92 Inv.#626 36,690 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 1,834.50 (paid on 27,890 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 7.34 1,127.16 688.92 438.24 6-17-92 Inv.#627 37,300 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 1,865.00 (paid on 30,500 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 7.46 1,157.54 818.90 338.64 6-17-92 Inv.#642 43,350 lbs. Job. melons @ .05/lb. 2,167.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.67 1,458.83 1,025.33 433.50 6-18-92 Inv.#643 44,150 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,207.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.83 1,498.67 1,057.17 441.50 6-18-92 Inv.#644 45,060 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,253.00 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.01 1,543.99 .00 1,543.99 6-18-92 Inv.#646 43,180 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,159.00 (paid on 38,380 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.64 1,450.36 1,211.32 239.04 6-18-92 Inv.645 47,070 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,353.50 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.41 1,644.09 .00 1,644.09 6-19-92 Inv.#663 43,520 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,176.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.70 1,467.30 1,032.10 435.20 6-19-92 Inv.#685 44,820 Crim. melons lbs. @ .05/lb. 2,241.00 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.96 1,532.04 1,083.84 448.20 TOTAL DUE $10,258.98 The amended complaint admits that Respondent's deductions for advances and NWPB were appropriate on each load/invoice, and these are not in contention. The amended complaint admits that Respondent has already made the payments to Petitioners, which are indicated. It is only the claimed shortfall on each load that is at issue. At formal hearing, Petitioners discussed a load they claimed they had delivered to Respondent on 6-20-92. They had neither receipts, weight tickets, nor settlement sheets, (invoices) nor payment from Respondent on this load. This "lost load," as the parties described it, is not named in the amended complaint. Therefore, no findings of fact can be made thereon, due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 appears to apply to loads 560, 561, 562, and 563, all loads occurring on 6-11-92. That date and those load numbers also are not listed in the amended complaint. Accordingly, no findings of fact will be made with regard to loads 560, 561, 562 or 563, due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners delineated two theories of recovery as to the seventeen claims actually named in the amended complaint. Petitioners claimed the right to recover from Respondents due to Respondent dealer's failure to pay for all or some of the poundage delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer on the following loads: 6-13-92 #573, 6-17-92 #628, 6-17-92 #626, 6-17-92 #627, 6-18-92 #644, 6-18-92 #646, 6-18-92 #645, 6- 19-92 #685. Petitioners claim the right to recover from Respondents due to Respondent dealer's failure to pay per pound at the rate of one cent below the "wire price" per pound on the following loads: 6-14-92 #586, 6-14-92 #587, 6- 15-92 #592, 6-15-92 #593, 6-16-92 #598, 6-16-92 #607, 6-17-92 #642, 6-18-92 #643, and 6-19-92 #663. For 6-15-92 18-24 lb. average 4.50 - 5.00 cents, few 6.00 26-32 lb. average 4.50 - 5.00 cents, few 6.00 For 6-16-92 18-24 lb. average 5.00 - 6.00 cents 26-32 lb. average 5.00 - 6.00 cents For 6-17-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 cents, few higher and lower 26-32 lb. average 6.00 cents, few higher and lower For 6-18-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, "Wire prices" are printed in "spread" form. Evidence was presented (Composite Exhibit P-14), and the parties are agreed, that the following were the "wire prices" at certain times material. Otherwise, there is no evidence in this record concerning amounts or dates of "wire prices." mostly 6.00, few higher 26-32 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, mostly 6.00, few higher and lower For 6-19-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, mostly 6.00, few higher 26-32 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents mostly 6.00, few higher and lower Since no "wire prices" were proven up for the days involved in loads 586, and 587, Petitioners are not entitled to recover on their theory of entitlement for those loads. Upon the allegations of the amended complaint and the "wire prices" proven, it appears that Petitioners have already received payment from Respondent dealer at one cent (or better) below the proven low-end "wire price" on loads 592, 593, 598, and 607. Therefore, Petitioners are not entitled to recover on their theory of entitlement for those loads. Petitioners (grower-producers) believed that they had negotiated an oral contract with Respondent dealer to the effect that the dealer would pay Petitioners at the rate of one cent below the "wire price" per pound on those days that Respondent took delivery from them of their watermelons. Respondent testified contrariwise that although such an arrangement was discussed, the parties' final oral agreement was concluded in terms of an excellent quality of every melon, and after negotiations were completed, the dealer understood that the price he was to pay the producers was just the same price per pound he paid all his other producers on any given day. In determining the daily uniform price per pound, Respondent admitted that he used the "wire price" as a guideline, but never explained exactly how the "wire price" constituted a guideline. The Petitioners and Respondent dealer had dealt with one another over a period of years. In past years they had discussed what was to occur if any loads were refused, in whole or in part, by retail buyers at their ultimate destinations. Over the years, the parties had agreed that for loads involving a "small deduct," that is, a small amount of refused melons, Respondent had unilateral authority to informally agree to dump the bad melons or take whatever he could get for the load and pass on the monetary loss to Petitioners. Petitioners conceded that the discretion to take or not take such losses always had been entirely that of Respondent during the parties' several years of past dealing, and that before 1992, whenever an ultimate recipient had refused melons, the "deduct" had been "worked out" this way with no prior notice to Petitioners. In short, by Petitioners' own evidence, it appears that up until the loads at issue in 1992, Petitioners had always simply accepted the Respondent's calculations concerning refusals for quality without requiring proof by way of a federal inspection. Mr. Randal Roberts Sr. testified that in his opinion, any "deduct" over 300 pounds was not "small." However, no evidence defining an industry standard for the relative terms of "small deducts" or "large deducts" was introduced. In light of the parties' standard arrangement over the whole course of their business dealings, it is deemed that Respondent continued to be within his rights in 1992 to unilaterally decide which melons to pay Petitioners for and which melons not to pay Petitioners for where quality became an issue between himself and the ultimate recipients. Petitioners estimated that on a scale of one to ten, the melons they had delivered to Respondent dealer in 1992 were "about a seven" when they delivered them to him, even though Respondent's agents culled out the really bad melons. It may be inferred therefrom that the loads were no better and were probably in worse condition when they reached their ultimate destinations. Respondent testified that he had dumped all or part of the remaining loads in question or reduced the price per pound from that of the "wire price" due to the poor quality of the melons based on complaints or refusals by the recipients when the melons reached their ultimate destinations. These are loads 573, 628, 626, 627, 644, 646, 645, 685, 642, 643, and 663. Although Petitioners adamantly denied that they had ever agreed to rely on federal inspections to determine which melons were bad and which were good, Respondent had gotten federal inspection sheets (R-2) to support his decision to dump all or part of loads 628, 643, 645, 663, and 685. Respondent dealer introduced his business journal (R-3) to show that load 643 was "bad" and load 644 was "dumped" due to poor quality. Respondent dealer introduced his contemporaneous business journal (R- 3) to show that except for loads 607, 643, 644, 663, and 685 he had paid as much to Petitioners per pound as to anyone else on the respective days he had taken delivery. On those loads he had paid Petitioners less than some other producers whom he dealt with on those days, but contended that he had reduced the price per pound paid to Petitioners on those days on the basis of poor quality, too. Nonetheless, 607 was paid at least at one cent below the "wire price" (See Finding of Fact 14), 643 was shown bad by inspection, 644 was dumped in its entirety per the dealer's journal, and 663 and 685 were shown bad by inspection. Upon the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent was within the parameters of his standard dealings with Petitioners where he reduced the price per pound of loads 643 and 663 on the basis of quality, just as he was within his clear unilateral authority and discretion to dump or discard whole melons from loads 628, 644, 645, and 685. After accounting for the foregoing loads, that leaves only loads 573, 626, 627, and 646 left in issue as to poundage and only load 642, (for which Respondent paid 4 cents per pound instead of one cent below the "spread" of the "wire price" for that day) at issue as to price per pound. As to each of these loads, Respondent produced business records wherein he had made contemporaneous notations concerning the quality complaints and/or number of melons rejected by the ultimate recipients. (R-2) Respondent did not pay Petitioners anything on load 645 because of freight deductions and Respondent also made freight deductions on some other invoices. There is no evidence in this record regarding how the parties had negotiated who would bear the ultimate cost of the freight. However, the Petitioners have not proven any entitlement to recover these charges which Respondent advanced and paid. Likewise, Petitioners also have not set out any trail by which the undersigned can trace any mathematical errors on any loads/settlement sheets to the Respondent dealer over Petitioners. Under the parties' standard mode of doing business, Respondent had clear unilateral authority and discretion to dump or discard whole melons for quality and pay Petitioners nothing for the whole melons dumped or discarded in loads 573, 626, 627, and 646. Upon the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent was also within the parameters of his standard dealings with Petitioners in not paying full negotiated price per pound on load 642 where some lesser price per pound could be negotiated with the ultimate recipient as to quality.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order dismissing all named claims against Respondents. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral 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
Findings Of Fact In 1983 William Lovett, Jr., Complainant, planted 65 acres of water melons, most of which were bought by Doyle L. Wadsworth, Respondent, either for himself or for William Manis Company. The only entity for which Respondent acted as agent was the Manis Company, for whom he has bought melons as its agent for many years. On behalf of himself or Manis, Respondent, in 1983, purchased melons from Complainant on June 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 29. Complainant's melons were bought at prices ranging from seven cents to ten cents per pound. The melons were paid for by check signed by Respondent, dated zero to five days after the invoice date, on either Respondent's checking account at the Barnett Bank of Brandon or on Manis Company's account at Sun Bank of Tampa. Total payments to Complainant for these melons were $285,104.25 (Exhibits 2 and 3). Complainant and Respondent had met shortly before the 1983 water melon season through a mutual friend. Wadsworth agreed to buy water melons from Lovett, not to act as his broker. The grower had the water melons harvested, the buyer provided trucks and trailers to pick up the melons at the field, and the sale occurred when the melons were loaded. Wadsworth testified that he explained to Lovett that he buys melons on a load basis which he has done for many years, that he does not act as a broker to sell the melons, and that once the melons are loaded they are the responsibility of the then-owner, Wadsworth. 1983 was a good year for water melons and Wadwsorth bought nearly all of Lovett's production. Lovett asked Wadsworth if he would handle his melons if Lovett planted a crop in 1984 and Wadsworth agreed. Wadsworth also told Lovett that he preferred "grays," which Lovett planted. Lovett understood that Wadsworth had agreed to buy all of his water melons except for those Lovett sold independently, and to pay the prevailing prices. Wadsworth had no such understanding. Lovett's primary occupation is doctor of veterinary medicine and he relied on others for harvesting information. For reasons not fully explained at the hearing, the harvesting of Lovett's 1984 crop of water melons was a little late. Accordingly, any further delays resulted in overripe or sunburned water melons. The first harvesting of Lovett's melons occurred on Saturday, June 2, 1984, and Wadsworth bought 46,480 pounds at 3-1/2 cents per pound on behalf of Manis Company. Harvesting next occurred Monday, June 4, 1984, when Wadsworth bought 40,680 pounds for Manis and just over 100,000 pounds for himself. Payment for these water melons was made June 5, 1984, by a check in the amount of $3,050.60 on the Manis bank and $3,626.70 00 Wadsworth's bank. During the loading on June 4 a large number of water melons were discarded as culls. This made the task of grading and overseeing the grading much more onerous, and Wadsworth advised Lovett he would not be buying any more water melons from him that season. Lovett came to Wadsworth's motel to persuade him to do otherwise, but without success. Lovett asked Wadsworth if he could refer him to someone else to handle his melons, which request Wadsworth declined. Lovett subsequently obtained the services of a broker to handle his water melons but the additional delay in getting the crop harvested and the extra brokerage cost he incurred resulted in less income to Lovett than he would have received had Wadsworth bought all of Lovett's melons. Conflicting evidence was presented regarding the condition of the water melons grown by Lovett in 1984. Lovett's witnesses described the field as the finest ever seen, while Wadsworth testified that recent excess rainfall left part of the field wet, and some vines were wilting. All witnesses agreed that there were a large number of culls discarded from the water melons graded No. 1 on the first harvesting. In view of the recommended disposition of this case, a definitive finding of fact on this issue is unnecessary.
The Issue Whether Respondent owes Petitioner $2,377.20 as alleged in the complaint filed by Petitioner in July 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Bigham Hide Company, Inc. (Petitioner), is a watermelon grower in Coleman and Lake Panasoffkee, Florida. Respondent, Florida-Georgia Produce, Inc. (Respondent), is a licensed dealer in agricultural products having been issued License Number 7666 by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department). Respondent has posted a bond in the amount of $30,000.00 written by Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company, as surety, to assure proper accounting and payment to producers such as Petitioner. In a complaint filed with the Department in July 1997, Petitioner alleged that he entered into an agreement with Bobby Patton (Patton) on behalf of Respondent to sell one truckload of "pee wee" watermelons. Under that agreement, Respondent agreed to pay seven cents per pound for the watermelons, and it would advance Petitioner $700.00 to cover the labor costs associated with loading the truck. The remainder would be paid upon final delivery. The complaint goes on to allege that Petitioner subsequently learned that there was "some problem" with the delivered produce. After Respondent inspected Petitioner's field to verify the quality of the crop, Petitioner was told that Respondent would "fight the fight" to get the shipment accepted. Since that time, however, the complaint alleges that Petitioner did not receive payment, an accounting of the transaction, an inspection report, or any further explanation. Accordingly, Petitioner filed this complaint seeking $3,077.20, less the $700.00 advance, or a total of $2,377.20. In its answer, Respondent has alleged that it actually received a truckload of "old diseased watermelons that had been lying in the field or on [the] field truck for a week," and the receiver refused to accept the load. Since it received nothing for the shipment, Respondent contends it is owed $700.00 for the money advanced to Petitioner. The parties agree that in late May 1997, Petitioner was contacted by Bobby Patton, who was representing Respondent, regarding the sale of small size watermelons. Patton offered to buy one truckload of "pee wee" watermelons at a price of seven cents per pound, to be paid after delivery to the receiver. Patton also agreed to advance Petitioner $700.00 to cover his loading costs. Petitioner agreed to these terms, and the truck was loaded from his field on June 3, 1997. The net weight of the loaded produce was 43,960 pounds. The vehicle's tag number was recorded on the loading slip as "AH 39099" from the province of Quebec, Canada. There is no evidence that the crop was diseased when it was loaded, or that it had been picked and lying in the field for several days before being loaded, as suggested in Respondent's answer to the complaint. The shipment was destined for Ontario, Canada. On or about June 5, 1997, the product was delivered to the customer, Direct Produce, Inc., in Etobicoke, Ontario. Because of a perceived lack of quality, the buyer refused to accept the load. Respondent immediately requested a government inspection which was performed on June 6, 1997. The results of that inspection are found in Respondent's Exhibit 3. It reveals that 1 percent of the load was decayed, 3 percent were bruised, 6 percent had Anthrocnose (belly rot), and 75 percent had "yellow internal discolouration." In addition, a composite sample reflected that 20 percent had "Whitish Stracked Flesh" while 5 percent had "Hollow Heart." In other words, virtually the entire shipment was tainted with defects or disease. The report also reflected that the net weight of the shipment was 44,500 pounds, and the tag number of the vehicle was "ALP 390999." The weight and tag number were slightly different from those recorded on the loading slip at Petitioner's field. After learning of the results of the inspection, Respondent's president, James B. Oglesby, immediately contacted Petitioner's president, Greg Bigham, and requested an inspection of Bigham's field to verify the quality of watermelons. During the inspection, Oglesby did not find any signs of belly rot or other problems similar to those noted in the government inspection. If there had been any incidence of belly rot in Petitioner's field, it would have been present in other unpicked watermelons. At the end of his inspection, Oglesby told Petitioner that he would "fight the fight" to get the shipment delivered and sold. Oglesby eventually found a buyer who would accept the shipment as feed for cattle. The buyer agreed to pay the freight charges for hauling the watermelons to Canada but nothing more. Therefore, Respondent was not paid for the load. Petitioner was led to believe that he would receive payment and paperwork, including the inspection report, within a few days. When he did not receive any documentation, payment, or further explanation within a reasonable period of time, he filed this complaint. It would be highly unlikely that a farmer would have one completely bad load from a field without the same problems being present in other loads shipped from the field at the same time. Petitioner presented uncontroverted testimony that no other shipments from that field during the same time period were rejected or had similar problems. In addition, it was established that poor ventilation on the truck, or leaving the loaded truck unprotected in the sun, could be causes of the crop being spoiled or damaged before it was delivered to Canada. Finally, at hearing, Respondent suggested that Bigham may have shown him a different field than the one from which his load was picked. However, this assertion has been rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner $2,377.20. In the event payment is not timely made, the surety should be responsible for the indebtedness. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 6th of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Terry T. Neal, Esquire Post Office Box 490327 Leesburge, Florida 34749-0327 James B. Oglesby Post Office Box 6214 Lakeland, Florida 33807 Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company 4311 West Waters Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Richard D. Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rushton is a grower of watermelons and qualifies as a "producer" 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. The amount and period of the bond have not been established. Petitioner's complaint sets out the amounts owed as follows: DATE OF SALE QUANTITY, AND PRICE PRODUCTS PER UNIT GRADE 6/7/92 Inv.#2051 43,200 lbs. AMOUNT Crimson Sweet Melons @.04 lb. $1,728.00 NWPB - 8.64 Adv. - 700.00 $1,019.36 6/10/92 Inv.#2053 43,900 lbs. Crimson Sweet Melons @3.5 lb. $1,536.50 NWPB - 8.78 Adv. - 700.00 $ 827.72 6/10/92 Inv.#2056 46,180 lbs. Crimson Sweet Melons @3.5 lb. $1,616.30 NWPB - 9.24 Adv. - 700.00 Less Payment of - 933.18 $ 907.06 $2,754.14 TOTAL $1,820.96 Regardless of the form of the complaint, Petitioner acknowledged at formal hearing that his claim relates only to Load 2051, that he did not dispute the deductions made by Respondents for NwPB or the advances paid him by the Dealer. Petitioner's complaint lumped the three loads together only because Respondent chose to cut a single check for all three loads and pay his accounts that way nearly three months after Load 2051 was shipped. With regard to Load 2051, it is not disputed that 43,200 pounds of watermelons were loaded by Dealers in Petitioner's field on June 7, 1992. The 1992 season was Petitioner's initial endeavor at growing watermelons. He was "in a bind" from the beginning of the growing season. Petitioner had originally intended to sell his watermelons to another buyer- dealer, but that person failed to send trucks to Petitioner's field. Petitioner was approached by Bobby Patton who put him in contact with Respondent Jim Smith on Saturday, June 6, 1992. Petitioner testified that Bobby Patton cut into and inspected sample melons and accepted most of his field of melons on Friday, June 5, 1992. After speaking with Petitioner by telephone on Saturday, June 6, 1992, Jim Smith went to Petitioner's field on Sunday, June 7, 1992. Petitioner and Respondents had no prior business dealings before their June 6 phone call. Jim Smith did not arrive at Petitioner's field on June 7, 1992 until the open-topped truck he had sent was half-loaded with Petitioner's melons. At that time, Smith and his employee, Dale Hires, inspected the melons on the truck and found some hollow hearts. At that time, Mr. Smith thought that the melons on the truck had been picked since Friday, but the undersigned accepts Petitioner's testimony and finds as fact that all the melons loaded into Load 2051 had been picked only since Saturday. Petitioner admitted that the melons were, "a little overripe and should have been loaded on Thursday or Friday and moved." Petitioner admitted that he and Smith then discussed that the melons were a little overripe and that they were "close" and had to be moved. Respondent Jim Smith told Petitioner there was a "potential problem," and he would let him know if a problem actually developed. Smith also said that they would try to work together and move the melons and try not to get Respondents "hurt." However, Petitioner did not specifically agree to "help" Respondent on melon loss. Petitioner later thought he was "helping" by putting a trucker up overnight in a motel at Petitioner's own expense. Smith used the phrases, "help each other" "help us" and "not hurt" to mean, "help Respondents so that Respondents would not show a loss." Petitioner testified that he had understood on June 7 that he was "not going to ride no freight" on the load. Smith concurred that this phrase he had used was mutually understood to mean that Respondents agreed to pick up the cost of freight. Respondent Smith considered the arrangement reached on June 7 to be a brokeraged deal wherein Respondent Dealers would "ride the freight" and Petitioner would "ride the melons," that is, Respondents expected Petitioner to absorb any loss occasioned by bad melons. Petitioner, on the other hand, considered all the watermelons accepted without reservation by Hires and Smith when they stepped off the half-loaded truck on June 7, 1992 and continued to load the truck with melons of questionable ripeness. Despite Petitioner's first assertion that he considered Bobby Patton's acceptance of the melons on Friday, June 5 to have been made on behalf of Respondents, that testimony is found to be contrary to his subsequent and more credible testimony that he considered Dale Hires to be acting for Respondents on June 7 and that he personally negotiated with Jim Smith on June 6 and June 7, after Bobby Patton was out of the picture. Respondents did nothing to cloak Bobby Patton, an independent contractor who "finds" melon fields, with apparent agency to negotiate the final "deal" for them with Petitioner. The "deal" between Petitioner and Respondents, such as it was, was finally and fully negotiated on June 7 between Petitioner and Respondent Jim Smith. The "deal" applied only to a certain specified segment of Petitioner's watermelon crop. Respondent Dealers thereafter handled a total of ten loads of watermelons. Respondent Dealers paid Petitioner satisfactorily on nine of the ten loads Only Load 2051, the first load, presented any problems. No agreement as to Respondents accepting all of Petitioner's field of watermelons was ever reached between the parties. Petitioner lost money with regard to the rest of his field, but that loss is in no way attributable to Respondents, despite Petitioner's expressed frustration in that regard. Petitioner heard nothing from Respondents until he requested payment and to "settle up" concerning all ten loads, approximately June 17, 1992. At that time, Jim Smith gave Petitioner settlement documents, including weight tickets and invoices for all ten loads at one time in a large envelope. Petitioner termed these documents "confirmations." At the time Smith handed Petitioner the envelope, Smith mentioned to Petitioner that one load had a problem with it. He did not give Petitioner any further information about which load had the problem. Before putting the confirmations in the envelope, Jim Smith had written across them, " * protect shipper on quality (ripe)." Petitioner testified that if this phrase had been on the documents, he did not see it, and if he had seen the phrase, he would not have understood it. Jim Smith had originally been promised $3,564.00 on Load 2051 in a telephone conversation with the ultimate recipient/receiver. He had based his June 6 offer and "deal" on June 7 with Petitioner for an expected gross to Petitioner of $1,734.04 in anticipation of the Respondents realizing the full amount of $3,564.00 from the receiver. Smith testified that when Load 2051 reached the receiver, it was rejected by the receiver due to the melons being overripe and hollow-hearted and that a federal inspection paid for by the receiver showed 15 percent to 40 percent of the samples were hollow hearted and the overall samples in the load was 25 percent, with bruising throughout but with the highest percentage in the lower layer of the piled watermelons, and some sunburn. He produced a federal inspection sheet dated June 10, 1992 (three days after the melons left Petitioner's field), covering an estimated sixteen hundred melons to the same effect. Respondent Smith had mailed this inspection sheet to Petitioner only in August 1992, with the final settlement documents and Respondents' check covering three loads, including Load 2051. The inspection sheet indicates "Midwest Marketing 2051" and "North Coast Brokerage, Cleveland, Ohio and carrier 39TR337-AL." The settlement sheets show the same trailer license number for Load 2051. (P-2) Smith also produced a bill of lading showing that North Coast Produce received carrier 39TR337 and rejected 15 melons cut for inspection, 238 melons bruised and racked, and seven decayed melons on June 10, 1992. The bill of lading shows 260 out of 1568 melons or roughly 17 percent of the load were rejected by the receiver. (R-5) Smith also produced a Norman's Brokerage invoice for shipping that trailer, for which shipping he says he paid $1,676.16, (R-4) and an invoice showing he was paid only $1,700.00 by the receiver for this load (R-2). Neither the receiver, the federal inspector, nor any trucker testified. Smith testified that after the receiver rejected some or all of Load 2051, he thought he would get at least $1,743.04 from the receiver but the receiver's check to him was rounded to only $1,700.00. The foregoing shows that Respondent Smith ultimately accepted, without dispute, the $1,700.00 paid him by the receiver which amount was less than 50 percent of the originally promised amount and which amount did not comport with a load that was at the worst only 15 percent to 40 percent bad as per the inspection report and which the bill of lading shows contained only 260 or 17 percent rejected melons. When Jim Smith totalled out the final settlement sheets for Petitioner in August 1992, Smith intended to deduct $1,676.16 for shipping and $108.00 as a "finder's fee" he had paid to independent contractor Bobby Patton from the $1,700.00 that he had actually been paid by the receiver, thus showing a net loss to Respondents on Load 2051 of $84.16. Instead, he explained Respondents' loss to Petitioner in the final August 1992 settlement documents as "original invoice $3,564.00, (meaning the originally anticipated revenues to Respondents) less actual receipts $1,743.04, (meaning the amount Smith had expected to receive after federal inspection and rejection of part of Load 2051 by the receiver, and not what Smith actually received from the receiver) for a balance of $1,820.96." Smith labelled that figure of $1,743.04 as "customer deducts" meaning it was Respondents' net loss due to actions of the receiver. He then deducted the $1,820.96 figure from the total amount owed by Respondents to Petitioner for three loads. Mr. Smith admitted he had no authority or justification per his agreement with Petitioner for deducting the finder's fee of $108.00 he paid to Bobby Patton or his additional loss of $43.04, which occurred when the recipient promised $1743.04 and paid $1700.00. He also admitted he had no authority per Respondents' agreement with Petitioner to deduct anything attributable to freight charges.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a Final Order awarding Petitioner $1,820.96 on Load 2051 only and binding Respondents to pay the full amount, but which in South Carolina Insurance Company's case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Greg Rushton 10940 N. Circle M Avenue Dunnellon, Florida 32630 James R. Smith Randall Smith Midwest Marketing Company Post Office Box 193 Vincennes, IN 47591 South Carolina Insurance Company 1501 Lady Street Columbia, SC 29201
The Issue The issues that were considered in the course of the hearing were those related to a claim by the Petitioner of entitlement to receive an additional $5,581.00 in proceeds related to the sale of watermelons to J. R. Sales, Inc. In this case Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent J. R. Sales, Inc. in the person of its representative, one Carr Hussey, had agreed to pay a fixed price of four cents per pound for large grey watermelons and 3.5 cents per pound for medium grey watermelons and that four cents per pound was due the Petitioner for the delivery of large jubilee watermelons. It is further alleged that those prices were not paid. If the Petitioner's assertions are correct, the additional amount owed would be $5,581.00. In reply Respondent J. R. Sales, Inc. denies the claim of $5,581.00 and in its defense states that all money due and owning to the Petitioner has been paid.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Earl Dicks, is a farmer in Columbia County, Florida. In 1984 Petitioner grew two varieties of watermelons in Columbia County for the purpose of selling those crops commercially. Those watermelon varieties were greys and jubilees. As of June 21, 1984, Petitioner had not sold his crop of watermelons. On that date Petitioner was introduced to Carr Hussey, President of J. R. Sales, Inc. This introduction was made by another farmer, one Doyle Ottinger. The purpose of this introduction was to ascertain whether Hussey would be interested in purchasing the watermelons which Petitioner had available for sale. J. R. Sales, Inc. is a company which purchases watermelons in Florida for delivery and further sale in markets outside of Florida. Following the introduction of the Petitioner and Hussey, those two gentlemen, Ottinger and Petitioner's son, Edward Dicks, went to see Petitioner's grey watermelon crop in Columbia County. Prior to arriving at the field, no discussion had been entered into between the Petitioner and Hussey as to price. While at the field Petitioner offered to sell the entire field of watermelons, and Hussey declined the purchase. At that juncture Hussey was not aware of any particular market in which he might place the Petitioner's watermelons. Hussey did indicate that if he were able to find a market for those crops, he would pay Petitioner the fair market value per pound for those watermelons on a given day. He further stated that the fair market price on June 21, 1984, was four cents a pound for large and 3.5 cents a pound for medium greys. The market price considerations at work, as Hussey envisioned them, had to do with the market conditions in New York, New England and Canada, places where the watermelons would be delivered. It also was important that the watermelons be delivered prior to July 4, 1984. The importance of this date had to do with the demand for watermelons for retail purchase prior to July 4, 1984, and a softening market immediately subsequent to that date. The discussion as to price was made in the presence of Petitioner, his son, and Hussey. There was no other discussion concerning the purchase price of the grey variety of watermelon, and no written document evidences this oral discussion of price. Following the conversation of June 21, 1984, in which price was discussed between the Petitioner and Hussey, the grey watermelons which Petitioner had in Columbia County were available for harvesting. One or two days after this conversation, the first loads of watermelons were harvested. Although Petitioner believes that 17,000 pounds of medium watermelons were harvested with the balance of the watermelons taken on that day being large watermelons, it is found that the 17,000 pounds related to large watermelons with the balance being medium watermelons. This pertains to Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1 admitted into evidence which contains the composite invoices for those loads together with poundage and price. Seventeen thousand pounds relates to the large at 3.5 per pound with the balance of the weights pertaining to mediums at three cents per pound. The net amount paid after deducting the cost of harvesting was $3,085.78. On July 2, 1984, additional medium and large grey watermelons were harvested from the Petitioner's Columbia County fields, through J. R. Sales, Inc. A copy of the composite invoices related to the latter, together with a description of the sizes, weights, and prices paid with deduction of harvesting cost, may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 3 admitted into evidence. Price paid was 2.5 cents per pound for medium greys and three cents per pound for large greys. These watermelons were watermelons which would not have arrived at J. R. Sales' markets in time meet the July 4, 1984, peak sales period. The total amount paid for this July 2, 1984, harvest of greys was $5,104.75. 6..Watermelons purchased from the Petitioner had to be placed in markets other than those normally served by J. R. Sales, Inc. In the period June 23 through June 25, 1984, J. R. Sales, Inc. bought watermelons from other farmers in the growing area and paid prices for large greys which varied from three cents to 3.5 cents per pound. The price being paid for medium greys in that time frame was three cents per pound, to a farmer other than Petitioner. In the same sequence of days, 3.5 cents per pound was paid for a purchase of large jubilees from another farmer. On the subject of large jubilees, Hussey had been shown a field of jubilee watermelons that were grown by Petitioner in Columbia County. When shown the melons, he indicated that he was not interested in purchasing them. Nonetheless, J. R. Sales, Inc. harvested large jubilee watermelons from that field and paid $1,529.15 for them. Payment was made to Petitioner at a rate of three cents per pound less harvesting cost. Petitioner's son was aware of this harvesting of the large jubilees. The composite invoices related to the large jubilees may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 2 admitted into evidence, a copy. This document shows the invoice numbers, the size, the price per pound and weight together with the gross price less harvesting cost and the net payment price. These watermelons were harvested on June 28, 1984. Even though there was no discussion as to price of the jubilees, Petitioner was of the opinion that four cents a pound for large jubilees should be the price, a price never agreed to by J. R. Sales, Inc. Sherod Keen, another individual who brokered and purchased watermelons in the area of Columbia County, Florida, in 1984 gave testimony. His testimony established that in the period June 21 through June 28, 1984, he was paying farmers a price between 3.5 cents to four cents per pound for medium greys and four to 4.5 cents per pound for large greys. On July 2, 1984, Keen was paying 3.5 to four cents for large greys. Keen agreed with Petitioner and Hussey that the cutoff date prior to July 4, 1984, is critical in terms of the price to be paid, in that watermelons delivered to the market prior to July 4, 1984, would bring a better price than those prices immediately following July 4, 1984. Keen sells in places such as Florida, Maine and Wisconsin. Keen was not interested in purchasing the watermelons which Petitioner sold to J. R. Sales, Inc. Hussey, Keen and Ottinger established through their testimony that the prices for watermelons varied day to day within the relevant time frame, June and July, 1984.
The Issue The issues presented here concern the attempt by Petitioner to recover $2,367.30 as payment for watermelons sold to Sunshine Fruit Company, Inc. See Sections 604.15 - 604.30, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1993, Petitioner was a producer of agricultural products in Florida. That product was watermelons. At that time Sunshine Fruit Company was a dealer in agricultural products grown in Florida. Bill Hamilton also produced watermelons in Florida in July, 1993. His field had a common boundary with Petitioner's field. The watermelons taken from Petitioner's field in July, 1993 adjacent to the Hamilton field are at issue here. Bill Hamilton had done business with Sunshine Fruit Company in 1993 but was unable to meet the July demand which Sunshine Fruit Company had for watermelons. Hamilton had conducted his business with Allen Reiter as representative for Sunshine Fruit Company. To assist Reiter in obtaining additional watermelons in July that Hamilton could not supply, Hamilton referred Reiter to the Petitioner. An agreement was made to sell Petitioner's watermelons. The agreement was one in which Phillip Allen, Petitioner's son, served as her representative in the negotiations. In this arrangement the son was entitled to fifty percent of any profits and Petitioner the remaining 50 percent. The deal Petitioner made was to provide one load of medium melons and one load of large melons to Sunshine Fruit Company. Allen Reiter sent trucks to pick up the melons from Petitioner's field. After referring the Petitioner's business to Sunshine Fruit Company, Bill Hamilton observed Allen Reiter cut watermelons that were being delivered to Sunshine Fruit Company to examine the condition of the watermelons. Those watermelons that were being examined were located on a field truck. The field truck was a truck different from the truck that was to be used in transporting the watermelons to market. Hamilton also observed Reiter examining watermelons that were being loaded onto the transport truck. Hamilton had not experienced significant problems with hollow heart or bruising in the watermelons that he had harvested in the field adjacent to that belonging to the Petitioner in the year 1993. An approach which Hamilton and Petitioner had employed to avoid crop damage to the watermelons was to avoid loading watermelons that had become wet when it rained. Both producers, that is to say Hamilton and the Petitioner, had experienced an occasional slow down in harvesting in July, 1993, because of rain. Rain delayed the harvesting and loading of the Petitioner's watermelons provided to Sunshine Fruit Company. When the rain shut down the harvesting operation, some of the watermelons had already been picked. Harvested watermelons were put on the field truck before the rain commenced and were covered up with plastic to keep the rain from damaging the watermelons. The watermelons that had been picked that morning and placed on the field truck were left on the field truck while it rained hard that afternoon. The load that is being described was finished with watermelons picked the following day. Charles Gardner who worked for Petitioner in the harvesting operation also saw Allen Reiter cut watermelons that were on the field truck on the first day, the day it rained in the afternoon. Gardner also saw Reiter examine melons on the field truck on the second day. Phillip Allen and others loaded the two trucks provided by Sunshine Fruit Company and he supervised that operation. The second load of watermelons was placed on a truck that Phillip Allen and Charles Gardner understood to be Allen Reiter's "personal truck." An individual whose name was not identified at the hearing, whom Gardner and Phillip Allen understood to be "Reiter's personal driver", based upon an introduction made by Allen Reiter, interfered with the attempts by Phillip Allen to discard watermelons of questionable quality that were being loaded onto the transport truck. Phillip Allen told the driver that the questionable watermelons were bad, and the driver said "they are all right". When Phillip Allen would attempt to discard watermelons, this unidentified individual would return the questionable watermelons into the group of watermelons being transported, accompanied by a remark to the effect, "don't worry about it." This arrangement was contrary to the more typical arrangement in which the producer would discard what it referred to as the "culls." This caused a considerable number of watermelons to be kept for transport that should have been discarded. In the past the "culls" had been broken in the field or sold as pig feed. Phillip Allen tried to contact Allen Reiter by telephone after experiencing problems in which the driver insisted that substandard watermelons be packed. Phillip Allen was unable to reach Allen Reiter. Being unsuccessful in this attempt at contact, Phillip Allen deferred to the driver's choice to leave bad watermelons in the load for transport to market. However, Phillip Allen, not the driver, was in charge of the loading of the truck upon which substandard watermelons were being placed. Therefore, to the extent that the substandard watermelons diminished the value of the load, Petitioner must suffer the consequences. Nothing in the record leads to the conclusion that the driver had the authority to act as agent for Sunshine Fruit Company in determining what watermelons were of sufficient quality to be shipped. The driver mentioned in the previous paragraph stated in the presence of Charles Gardner that he was going home for the weekend and would deliver the watermelons on Monday. This comment was made on the prior Friday. The driver stated in the presence of Phillip Allen that he was going home because of brake problems and was going to wait to deliver the melons until Monday. Larry Thompson was the buyer and field supervisor for Sunshine Fruit Company in the transaction with Petitioner. Because it had been raining for several days, the decision to purchase the watermelons was through an arrangement in which the price would be determined at the time of receipt at the ultimate destination for the produce. There was no written agreement between the parties. Larry Thompson went to the field on the day after it had rained. While at the field on the second day Thompson observed the load of large watermelons. Charles Gardner told Larry Thompson that the large watermelons were popping. Larry Thompson told Allen Reiter that Reiter needed to check the large watermelons. Larry Thompson observed watermelons that were split. The watermelons were further observed by cutting the melons to examine them. During these events Thompson told Reiter that Thompson was glad that Sunshine Fruit Company was "riding" the watermelons, meaning waiting to determine the price until delivery at the ultimate destination. Otherwise Sunshine Fruit Company would not have bought the watermelons that were in the questionable condition as Thompson observed them on the second day. Some of these substandard watermelons were observed by Phillip Allen when loading the trailer and in conversation with the unnamed driver. As expected, this load of watermelons was in poor condition at the place and time that it was delivered. This was confirmed by an inspection that was performed at the place of ultimate delivery. Phillip Allen was made aware of the problem with that load. Phillip Allen told Larry Thompson that he, Phillip Allen, was going to have to contact the Inspector and asked that Thompson provide Allen with a copy of the inspection report. Thompson mailed Allen a copy of the inspection report. Thompson told Allen that some arrangement would have to be made to gain the best financial outcome with the questionable load of watermelons that could be achieved or that the watermelons would have to be dumped. It was resolved between Thompson and Allen that an individual in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, would be responsible for making some disposition with the questionable load of watermelons and this was accomplished by that individual in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is unclear who would pay for freight. Concerning the freight costs, Petitioner made no claim at hearing that the freight costs should be borne by Sunshine Fruit Company, and Petitioner and Sunshine Fruit Company failed to prove the amount of freight costs that had been incurred. However, based upon testimony by Dale Swain, a dealer in agricultural products in the region, it is inferred that the custom and practice employed in selling watermelons in 1993, to include watermelons sold by Petitioner to Sunshine Fruit Company, called for the deduction of freight expenses from the price paid for the watermelons. Watermelons Swain purchased from Petitioner in July 1993 were of acceptable quality. It was established that the cost of harvesting the subject watermelons would be borne by the producer, Pauline Allen. Phillip Allen established that the price per pound for both medium and large watermelons was 3.5 . It is undisputed that the load amounting to 41,180 pounds at 3.5 per pound was worth $1,441.30. Nor is there any contention concerning the fact that Sunshine Fruit Company has paid $740 to the Petitioner for the watermelons in question. At hearing, Petitioner asserted that the second load, the load with problems, weighed at the scales in Florida before the transport in the amount 47,600 pounds. At 3.5 per pound the claimed value was $1,666.00. The at-scale value was not the agreed upon arrangement. The actual amount which was paid for the problem second load as delivered was not established at the hearing, but it can be inferred that the amount is less than $1,666.00 based upon facts that were presented at hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Final Order be entered which dismisses the complaint calling for the payment of additional monies in the amount of $2,367.30. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 18th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX CASE NO. 93-6173A The following discussion is given concerning the Respondent Sunshine Fruit Company's findings of fact: Unnumbered Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that it is not clear in the record whether both loads are to be paid for within two weeks of passing inspection. Unnumbered Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not supported by the record. Unnumbered Paragraph 4 constitutes legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip Allen 695 North Maylen Lacanto, FL 34461 Allen Reiter 3535 Recker Highway Winter Haven, FL 33880 Richard E. Straughn, Esquire Post Office Box 2295 Winter Haven, FL 33883-2295 Meritor Savings, F.A. Post Office Box 193 Winter Haven, FL 33882 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Bureau of Licensure and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
