Findings Of Fact On March 25, 1980, Willard Sutliff, broker for Okun and Charles Weisinger, salesman for Six L's, met at the Six L's packing facility in Immokalee. On that date, Sutliff inspected, purchased and took delivery of a load of tomatoes for an agreed price of $10,198.50. The tomatoes were shipped the same day by transport arranged by Sutliff, and arrived in New York at the Okun facility on March 28, 1980. They were immediately inspected by a United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) representative and found to be "Now approximately 60 percent U.S. No. 1 quality, 9 percent soft, 5 percent decay." Following harvesting, sorting and packing, tomatoes are taken to the Six L's "gas room" where they are normally held for a period of 48 to 60 hours prior to shipment. During this period the tomatoes continue to ripen. The tomatoes at issue here had been placed in the gas room on March 19 and were well past the optimum shipping point at the time of sale on March 25. These tomatoes were initially inspected by a U.S.D.A. representative on March 19 at the Six L's facility and were assigned a U.S. combination grade. This grade indicates the tomatoes are a combination of U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 grade, but are at least 60 percent U.S. No. 1. Sutliff was aware of the March 19 U.S.D.A, report, but contends he purchased the load with the understanding from Weisinger that the tomatoes would grade at least 75 percent U.S. No. 1, and his broker's memorandum so indicates. Weisinger denies such representation. The Six L's office manager received his copy of the broker's memorandum on April 3 and regarded the 75 percent U.S. 1 entry as a minor error not requiring repudiation since the tomatoes had already been delivered. Sutliff was accorded ample opportunity to inspect the tomatoes prior to purchase. Although the tomatoes were in crates on pallets which limited his access, Sutliff did observe the color of the tomatoes and also determined that they were "second picking" rather than "crown picking". Had he elected to do so, Sutliff could have required the crates to be opened or requested a further U.S.D.A. inspection. Sutliff purchased the load at a price somewhat lower than market for high grade tomatoes. Weisinger contends he "discounted" the price due to their ripeness while Sutliff contends he paid the lower price because the tomatoes were second picking and were not represented to be 85 percent U.S. No. 1 which would have justified a higher price. The price was arrived at through negotiation and, obviously, all relevant factors including the ripened condition of this highly perishable commodity were taken into account by the parties. The tomatoes were acknowledged to be in good condition by the trucker when he accepted them for loading on March 25th. The temperature records and the three days for transit to New York indicate reasonable shipping conditions. Thus, the deterioration was not due to mishandling, but primarily to the age of the tomatoes when they arrived in New York on March 28th. Okun did not attempt to reject this shipment upon delivery in New York, nor did it furnish any written notice of a price dispute. Okun did, however, furnish Six L's a copy of the March 28 U.S.D.A. inspection report. The parties became involved in a separate dispute in late March when Sutliff claims he purchased a second load of tomatoes from Weisinger which he intended to leave in the gas room for further ripening. When he attempted to take delivery, Petitioner refused claiming no promise of sale or contract had been made. Sutliff's diary and broker's memorandum indicate the purchase was made. However, no signed agreement was produced and Six L's denied the purported sale by telegrams on March 26 and March 31, 1980. Further testimony surrounding the two disputes was given by both parties regarding their face to face end telephone conversations. Their recollections of these conversations were self-serving and conflicting, and are thus assigned no evidentiary weight.
The Issue Whether, under the provisions of sections 604.15 - 604.34, Florida Statutes, Lester Towell Distributors, Inc., is entitled to recover $2,098 for agricultural products ordered by and delivered to VBJ Packing, Inc
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. Lester Towell is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. VBJ is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of extra-large green bell peppers. Lester Towell delivered 200 boxes of such peppers to VBJ on May 23, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 63 boxes of peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 137 boxes from producer Thomas Produce, in Boca Raton, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of yellow corn. Lester Towell delivered 100 boxes of such corn to VBJ on May 24, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 100 boxes of corn from producer Wilkinson-Cooper, in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for this producer; it purchased the products outright. On May 24, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of jalapeno peppers, white corn, and red radishes. Lester Towell delivered two boxes of jalapeno peppers, 26 boxes of white corn, and 20 boxes of red radishes to VBJ on May 25, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 2 boxes of jalapeno peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 26 boxes of white corn and 20 boxes of red radishes from producer American Growers in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. Lester Towell filed its complaint with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department") pursuant to the provisions of section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, because VBJ did not pay for the products identified above. There is, however, no evidence to establish that Lester Towell was a producer or the agent or representative of a producer with respect to the products for which it seeks payment. It is, therefore, not a "person" entitled to file a complaint with the Department against VBJ and its surety.
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 dismissing the complaint of Lester Towell Distributors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 3nd day of July 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 3rd day of July 1996
Findings Of Fact Willie J. Woods is a farmer. He entered into an agreement with W. R. Ward, Jr., President of Growers Marketing Service, Inc. (GMS) concerning the disposition of watermelons which he had grown. The testimony of Woods and Ward concerning the nature of the agreement is conflicting. In the absence of a written contract, the nature of the agreement must be determined from the other documents surrounding their transactions. From these documents, it is determined that the agreement between the parties was not for the purchase of Woods' watermelons by GMS. The documentation surrounding the transactions by GMS, show that GMS was acting as a broker or middle man in introducing Woods' watermelons into the stream of commerce. According to Mr. Ward's records, each shipment was assigned a transaction number, and each sale from a lot of watermelons was also assigned a transaction number. The record of each of these transactions was examined in detail. Below each of these transactions is discussed, and where portions of the record are particularly pertinent, they have been copied and attached to this order for ease of reference. In some instances, the settlement statement has been reproduced and corrected to reflect what the actual charges should have been based upon the underlying record. A handwritten explanation of the adjusting entries has been added to these statements. Transaction number 1439: On June 4, 1991, Woods delivered 43,750 pounds of watermelons to GMS The documentation surrounding this transaction shows that GMS, sold the load of watermelons FOB Brooksville, Florida for a price of 14 cents per pound.The purchaser's driver transported the load from Brooksville to Canada where the purchaser "rejected" the load because the melons were immature. By purchasing the watermelons FOB Brooksville, the purchaser waived any right to reject the melons upon their arrival at their destination. Further, the only evidence of immaturity is an inspection report which states that the inspection was limited and may not reflect the condition of the whole load. The inspection report itself is hearsay. The dollar value of this load as stated in the Bill of Lading/Customs Declaration was $6,125.00. The cost of freight was not shown in the file because it was delivered FOB Brooksville and the costs were borne by the purchaser. The GMS's handling fee was 1 cent per pound or $438.00. GMS owed Woods $5,687.00 on transaction number 1439. GMS paid Woods $2,879 on this transaction. GMS still owes Woods $2,808 on this transaction. Transaction number 1424: On June 4th, GMS sold in behalf of Woods $4,320 pounds of watermelons for 20.25 cents per pound. W. R. Ward stated that the price was reduced from 15 to 5 cents per pound, and was a bookkeeping error. The file reflects the sales price for the 46,320 pounds of watermelons was $9,380. The file reflects that transportation on this load of watermelons was $1,683.00, and GMS, was entitled to 2.5 cents per pound for packing and 1 cent handling for a total of $1,621. The total expenses were $3,304.00 for transaction number 1424. GMS owed Woods $6,077.00 for transaction 1424, but only paid him $1,844. GMS still owes Woods $4,233 on this transaction. Transaction number 3534: On June 4th, GMS, handled a load of yellow meat watermelons weighing 4,071 pounds for Willie J. Woods. Subsequently, GMS sold portions of this load of watermelons in transactions number 1565, 1507, 1461, 1403, and 1476. On June the 6th, GMS sold 13,337 pounds of watermelons at 17 cents a pound for a total sales price of $2,267.29 in transaction 1461. On June 6th, Growers Marketing Service sold 18,909 pounds at 14 cents a pound for a total of $2,647.26 in transaction number 403. On June 7th, Growers Marketing Service sold 1,945 pounds at 22 cents a pound for a total of $427.90 in transaction 1476. On June 14th, Growers Marketing Service sold 5,347 pounds on transaction 1565 which were subsequently rejected because of severe decay. See, Dump Report dated July 5 in Transaction 1565. Growers Marketing Service showed no income nor expense to the grower on transaction 1565. Because these melons were not sold until June 14, it is possible that they decayed. GMS's treatment of the transaction on the settlement statement is contrary to the notes on transaction 1565 which treat is as a wash with no income or expense to Woods. The assessment of freight and handling charges was not inappropriate under the circumstances, and are disallowed. See, Corrected Invoice 3534 attached to this Order. The total revenue from the remaining transactions was $6,142. The expenses on the various loads total $2,285. GMS owed Woods $3,857 on this load, but only paid him $1152. GMS still owes Woods $2705 on this transaction. Transaction number 3541: On June 7, 1991, Growers Marketing Service handled 9,997 pounds of watermelons for Willie J. Woods on transaction number 1565. This load was sold to Castellini Produce on transaction 1565, discussed above, where it was rejected for excessive decay. The assessment of the freight charges and handling charges on this load which was handled 10 days after it was picked was inappropriate, and is disallowed. It is treated also as a wash in this transaction just as it was in 3534, and just as GMS treated it in transaction 1565. Transaction number 3546: On June 11th, Growers Marketing Service received 4,949 pounds of yellow meat watermelons from Woods. It subsequently sold these watermelons for Woods in transactions 1589, 1607, and 1613. Regarding transaction 1589, the Growers Marketing Service's settlement statement to Woods reflects that this transaction is subject to PACA Audit; however, GMS included the 14,121 pounds of watermelons in its settlement at a expense to Woods of 5 cents per pound on a sales price of 1.67 cents per pound. Because this transaction is still subject to audit, it was inappropriate to settle with the farmer. For purposes of this accounting, 1589 is not considered. In transaction 1607, GMS sold 16,775 pounds of yellow meat watermelons received from Woods on transaction 3546. Transaction 1607 and the funds received from the transaction are discussed in full below with regard to transaction 3548; therefore, it is not discussed or accounted for as part of transaction 3546. In transaction 1613, Growers Marketing Service sold 10,053 pounds of watermelons at 11.6 cents per pound for a total of $1,069.00. Expenses attributable to transaction 1613 were $554.00. Woods was entitled to $614.00 on transaction 1613; however, he was paid nothing on this transaction; GMS owes Woods $614 on this transaction. Transaction 1475: On June 11th, Growers Marketing Service received 45,050 pounds of watermelons from Woods. Growers Marketing Service asserts that the original price of these watermelons was dropped from 15 cents to 12 cents; however, the checkstub attached to the invoice shows a total payment to GMS of $7,298.10 at the original purchase price of 17.2 cents per pound. Growers Marketing Service's costs in this transaction were $2,358. Because this transaction clearly shows the original price was paid, it reflects adversely on creditability of the witnesses for Growers Marketing Service with regard to their testimony in other transactions that the original price was reduced due to fall in the market. Growers Marketing Service owed Woods $4,940 on transaction 1475, and paid him $4,484. GMS still owes Woods $456 on this transaction. Transaction number 1508: On June 11, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 46,000 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods. Growers Marketing Service sold these melons at a price of 10.25 cents per pound. Growers Marketing Service received $4,715.00 on transaction 1508 and had expenses in the amount of $2,259.00. Growers Marketing Service owed Woods $2,456.00 on transaction 1508, and paid Woods $2,284. GMS still owes Woods $172 on this transaction. Transaction number 1497: On June 11, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 45,340 pounds of watermelons in this transaction. Growers Marketing Service sold these watermelons at 16.35 cents per pound and deducted freight of 4.35 cents per pound, showing a net sales price of 12 cents per pound. This resulted in sales revenue of $5,441 from which GMS deducted its 1 cent handling charge and an additional $4,750 listed as a harvesting advance. GMS paid Woods $204. GMS introduced no proof of a harvesting loan; however, Woods' complaint admits this loan. Nothing is owed to Woods on this transaction. Transaction number 3548: On June 12, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 41,132 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Service sold watermelons received from Woods on this transaction in its transaction numbered 1613, 1607 and 1627. Growers Marketing Service asserts that 24,457 pounds of watermelons were rejected and destroyed on transaction 1607. The records regarding transaction 1607 show handwritten notation on the invoice that Growers Marketing Service received a total after expenses of sale of $3,286.00 on transaction 1607. In transaction 1613, Growers Marketing Service sold 10,032 pounds of watermelons at 11 cents a pound and in transaction 1627 Growers Marketing Service sold 7,899 pounds of watermelons at 7 cents a pound. The original settlement statement reflected incorrectly that Woods owed GMS $810. A corrected settlement statement on transaction 3548 is attached to this Order and reflects that Willie J. Woods was owed the amount of $1,019.00 in transaction 1607, $624.00 in transaction 1613, and $1,019.00 in transaction 1627. GMS paid Woods no money on this transaction, and owes Woods a total of $1,873. Transaction number 1527: On June 12, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 50,080 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods. Growers Marketing Service sold these watermelons for 17.35 cents per pound receiving a total of $8,689.00 less expenses of $2,441.00. GMS owed Willie J. Woods $6,248.00 on transaction 1527, and paid Woods $247. GMS owes Woods $6,001. Transaction number 1536: On June 12, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 41,320 pounds watermelons from Willie J. Woods. Growers Marketing Service consigned these watermelons and received $2,078.00 less expenses of $1,473.00. Woods owed $605.00 from Growers Marketing Service on transaction 1536, and paid Woods $307. GMS still owes Woods $298. Transaction number 1535: On June 12, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 43,240 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods in this transaction. Growers Marketing Service subsequently sold these watermelons at 16.45 cents per pound receiving a total of $7,113.00 less expenses of $2,357.00. Growers Marketing Service owed Willie J. Woods $4,856.00 on transaction 1535, and paid Woods $2,802. GMS still owes Woods $2,054. Transaction number 1505: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 44,950 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on this transaction. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Service sold these watermelons for a total of $6,967.00 to a dealer in Canada. The dealer in Canada rejected the watermelons upon their receipt serving that they were overripe on June 15, 1991, when they were received. A Canadian agricultural inspection was ordered and conducted on June 21, 1991, which revealed that 28% of the melons showed decay. However, the inspection was not timely and the report is hearsay. GMS failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining a prompt inspection and seeking recovery in behalf of Woods. Therefore, after absorbing expenses of $2,747.00, Growers Marketing Service owed Woods $4,220.00 for his loss in this transaction. GMS paid Woods $1,250 salvage on the load; however, it still owes him $2,970. Transaction number 1520: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 45,940 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods in this transaction. The front of the folder shows that Growers Marketing Service sold this load of watermelons to Winn Dixie in South Carolina for 12 cents per pound, or $5,513. Upon receiving the watermelons on June 15 1991, Winn Dixie rejected the melons because they were "cutting white, green fresh." See copy of front of file. Growers Marketing Service asked another broker to move the load, and that broker and Growers Marketing Service arranged to have the load inspected at its next destination, Staunton, Virginia. The truck broke down in route to Staunton, Virginia and did not arrive until June 18, 1991. The other broker described the melons as looking "cooked" on arrival. Growers Marketing Service charged Woods with freight on this load. Because Growers Marketing Service had a legitimate freight claim against the trucking company, yet charged the loss and freight charges to the grower, GMS owes Woods $5,940 less the salvage, freight and expenses totaling $2,125. GMS owes Woods $3,816. Transaction number 3553: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 29,478 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on transaction 3553. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Service sold these melons to various concerns realizing $3,450.76 on these sales. GMS's settlement statement with Woods on this transaction reflects a deficit on transaction 1505 of $822.50. According to the records reviewed by the Hearing Officer there was no deficit in transaction 1505; therefore, the deduction of $822.50 was inappropriate. Adding this money back into the amount due Woods, Woods should have received $1,615.74 on transaction number 3553. GMS paid Woods $675, and still owes Woods $941. Transaction number 3552: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 32,769 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on this transaction. A review of the records reflects that Growers Marketing Service subsequently sold 10,403 pounds of these melons at three cents a pound, realizing $312.09. Growers Marketing Service also sold 19 bins of these melons weighing 22,366 pounds for nine cents a pound for a total of $2,012.94. Growers Marketing Service's settlement statement reflects a packing charge of two and a half cents per pound for 22,366 pounds of melons that were in bins. This is excluded as an expense because the adjustment for packing charges was included in the Hearing Officer's recomputation of the price of nine cents per pound. Similarly, the price adjustment of one and a half cents per pound was included in the recomputation of the price and is therefore excluded. The settlement statement which is attached to this Order reflects total receipts of $2,325 and total expenses of $750. Growers Marketing Services owed Willie J. Woods $1,575 on transaction number 3552, and paid Woods $1,551. GMS owes Woods $24 on this transaction. Transaction number 3549: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Service received 32,564 pounds of watermelon from Willie J. Woods on this transaction. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Service sold 4,008 pounds of watermelons at three cents a pound on transaction 1669, realizing $120.24 on the sale. Growers Marketing Service sold seven bins of watermelons weighing 8,400 pounds at $217.66 for each bin, realizing a total of $1,523.66 on transaction 1532. Growers Marketing Service sold 1,346 pounds of watermelon at eight cents a pound, realizing $107.68 on transaction 1678. Growers Marketing Services sold 18,810 pounds of watermelons at sixteen and a half cents a pound, realizing $3,104 on transaction 1530. The Growers Marketing Services' settlement statement on transaction 3549, corrected as indicated above, shows that Growers Marketing Services received a total of $4,855 on this transaction. Growers Marketing Services' statement reflects packing charges of four cents per pound for 24,164 pounds. This packing charge was not applicable because the melons are indicated to have been in bins, not in cartons. Further, the price adjustment of one and a half cents per pound on 18,810 pounds was included in the Hearing Officer recomputation of the price per pound. Taking into account these corrections, total revenue was $4,855, and the total expenses of Growers Marketing Services were $1,613. Growers Marketing Services owed Woods $3,242 on transaction 3549, and paid him $1,690. GMS still owes Woods $1,552. Transaction 3556: On June 13, 1991, Growers Marketing Services received 32,898 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on this transaction. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Services sold 2,086 pounds of these watermelons for 12 cents a pound on transaction 1622. Growers Marketing Services sold 2,096 pounds of these watermelons at 10 cents a pound realizing $210 on transaction 1575. Growers Marketing Services sold 1,983 pounds of these watermelons at 10 cents a pound realizing $198 in transaction 1647. Growers Marketing Services' settlement for transaction 3556 is attached to this Order and reflects an original price for these melons of 4 cents per pound; however, Growers Marketing Services sold 1,029 of these watermelons at 11.6 cents a pound in transaction 1613. The settlement statement, a copy of which is attached, is corrected to reflect the sales price of 11.6 cents a pound, and the resulting change in the monies received from $41.16 to $119. GMS sold 2086 pounds of melon for 12 cents per pound realizing $250 on transaction 1622. GMS sold 3,841 pounds of watermelons for 10 cents per pound realizing $384 on transaction 1707. Growers Marketing Services sold 21,862 of these watermelons at 7 cents a pound realizing $1,530 on transaction 1627. The total received by Growers Marketing Services was $2,691 less expenses of $1,952. Growers Marketing Services owed Willie J. Woods $739, and paid him $662 on transaction 3556. GMS still owes Woods $77. Transaction number 3557: On June 14, 1991, Growers Marketing Services received 20,013 pounds of watermelons from Willie J. Woods on this transactions. Subsequently, Growers Marketing Services sold 9,214 watermelons at 12 cents a pound on transaction 1616. Growers Marketing Services 3,418 pounds of watermelons at 3 cents a pound in transaction 1669. Growers Marketing Services sold three bins of watermelons weighing 3,525 pounds at 16.5 cents a pound and an additional 3,852 pounds of watermelons at 16.5 cents a pound in transaction 1530. This is a total of 16,162 pounds of watermelons. The Growers Marketing Service's settlement statement, which is attached, is corrected to show the correct number of pounds sold and the correct amounts of money received by Growers Marketing Service. Growers Marketing Service received a total of $3,301.50 for the sell of these watermelons. Concerning the expenses shown by Growers Marketing Service, the number of pounds handled is adjusted to show that 16,162 pounds was handled. In addition, the 4 cent packing charge for 16,484 pounds of watermelons is deleted since these melons were not packed in cartons but in bins. In addition, the 1.5 cent price adjustment for 3,525 pounds of watermelons handled in transaction 1530 is in the recomputation of the price. The corrected expense total is $254. Growers Marketing Service owes Willie J. Woods $3,048 on transaction 3557. GMS paid Woods $643; however, it still owes Woods $2,405. The total of the sums still owed Mr. Woods by GMS is $32,999.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the parties be notified of these findings, and GMS permitted the opportunity to pay to Willie J. Woods $32,999 within 30 days, and if GMS fails to settle with Mr. Woods, Mr. Woods should be permitted to obtain settlement from the Respondent's bond in the amount of $32,999, or to the limits of the bond. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 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 29th day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Willie J. Woods 1022 Piercewood Point Brooksville, Florida 34602 W. R. Ward, Jr., President Growers Marketing Srevice, Inc. Post Office Box 2595 Lakeland, Florida 33806 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Division of Marketing, Bureau of Licensure and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The primary issue in this hearing was the existence of a contract between M. Stembridge and Jack's Fruit Company under which monies were owed Stembridge.
Findings Of Fact Prior to August 5, 1974, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who was in the grove caretaking business, called Mr. Jack Goldtrap by telephone relative to the sale of citrus fruit on properties managed by her for her mother-in-law and herself. Their discussion regarding the sale of the fruit and the terms was incorporated with the contract, Exhibit 1, which Mr. Goldtrap sent to Mrs. Stembridge together with a check for $7500. Mrs. Stembridge executed the contract, accepted the check, and returned the executed contract to Mr. Goldtrap. This contract recites that Mr. Goldtrap had purchased " all fruit on the following groves at market price at time of picking less 50 cents plus picking cost". Thereafter the contract lists the groves subject to the contract: "Home Bloc, Poor Prospect and R. F. Stembridge grove." The testimony was uncontroverted that the fruit which is the subject of the instant controversy was located within the groves enumerated in the contract, however, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge stated that it had not been her intent to sell the fruit in controversy, but she was uncertain whether this was communicated to Mr. Goldtrap prior to the execution of the contract. Mr. Goldtrap testified that he felt he had purchased all the fruit on the groves as stated in the contract. The Hearing Officer finds that the contract, Exhibit 1, takes precedent over any prior verbal agreement between the parties to the contract and that Mr. Goldtrap purchased all fruit in the grove identified therein. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge and R. M. Stembridge testified that subsequent to the written contract with Mr. Goldtrap that R. M. Stembridge entered into an oral agreement to purchase the fruit in controversy from Mrs. Stembridge (the mother of R. M. Stembridge and mother-in-law of Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who is the sister-in-law of R. M. Stembridge). R. M. Stembridge desired the fruit for sale in his roadside stand at his service station, and planned to pick the fruit in controversy himself on a piecemeal basis over several months. Pursuant to her mother-in-law's Instructions, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge contacted T. G. Mixon, a field superintendent with 31 years experience to estimate the value of the fruit in controversy. T. G. Mixon looked at the trees and crop in controversy late in 1974 and estimated in value to R. M. Stembridge as $3/box; however, he qualified his estimate stating that this was only a valid estimate of its value to R. M. Stembridge based on his particular intended use and that its market value was no where near that figure. R. M. Stembridge paid the agreed upon price of $900 to his mother-in-law for the fruit in controversy. Prior to picking the fruit he had purchased, Mr. Goldtrap visited the groves and was shown the groves, their boundaries, and the fruit in controversy by Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman. This fruit was red grapefruit which is generally unsuitable for juice production. Such fruit cannot be economically picked for juice because there is no market for the unacceptable fruit. Mr. Goldtrap was advised by Mrs. Stembridge's foreman that Mr. Stembridge was interested in the fruit. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge testified that she thought that her foreman had told an unknown person that the red grapefruit had been promised to her brother-in-law. Mr. Goldtrap decided not to pick the red grapefruit, but to leave the fruit on the trees, and instructed his picking crew supervisors to check with R. M. Stembridge to determine which of the fruit be desired. In addition to the red grapefruit in controversy, R. M. Stembridge also had agreed to purchase white grapefruit from approximately 10 trees adjoining his service station, a fact unknown to Mr. Goldtrap or his supervisors. When the supervisors called on Mr. Stembridge to find out which trees should be spared, Stembridge thinking that they were referring to the white grapefruit trees near his station and that they had been shown the red grapefruit trees by his sister-in-law's foreman told them to begin their picking and when they got down to the station he would show them the trees to spare. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman did not instruct the picking supervisors and the picking crew picked the red grapefruit in controversy. When Mr. Stembridge became aware of the reds having been picked, he contacted Mr. Goldtrap. Mr. Stembridge was very irate and Mr. Goldtrap was very apologetic not fully realizing how the fruit had been picked when it had been his intent to spare the fruit. At this point, Stembridge demanded $3/box for the fruit, and Mr. Goldtrap stated that was a high price. Thereafter, in either this conversation or a subsequent one, Stembridge stated perhaps he knew a man who would buy them, however, when contacted this individual was not interested. When Goldtrap was advised of this, Goldtrap said he would send another truck and collect the red grapefruit. The issue presented in this controversy, therefore, becomes a question of whether there was a transaction between Mr. Goldtrap and Mr. R. M. Stembridge. It is clear from the contract, Exhibit 1, that Mr. Goldtrap owned the fruit in question at the time Mr. Stembridge "purchased" the fruit from his mother. Goldtrap intended to leave the fruit because of it low value and instructed his supervisors to contact Stembridge so that Stembridge could identify the trees in which be was interested. However, these trees were not identified by Stembridge because Stembridge thinking the supervisors were referring to the white grapefruit trees, did not indicate the trees he desired. Therefore, Goldtrap's intent to relinquish his right to the fruit was never effectively communicated to Mrs. Barbara Stembridge or to R. M. Stembridge. Mr. Stembridge's demand for $3/box for the grapefruit was in essence a demand for damages and not an offer for sale. Even if it were viewed as an offer (overlooking Stembridge's lack of ownership), there is no evidence that Goldtrap accepted the offer. His response was to advise Stembridge that he would send another truck to pick up the fruit. This action was consistent with his prior contract with Barbara Stembridge to purchase all the fruit in the groves and his legal obligation. See Section 601.64(3), Florida Statutes. The testimony was clear that Mr. Goldtrap had not paid out the moneys received from the sale of the red grapefruit because of the questions raised by R. M. Stembridge. However, Barbara Stembridge has filed no complaint in this matter, and based upon the foregoing findings that there is no transaction or contract between R. M. Stembridge and Goldtrap, R. M. Stembridge is not entitled to an accounting or to payment for the fruit in controversy.
The Issue Whether Respondents Veg Service, Inc., and Western Surety Company are justly indebted to Dixie Growers, Inc., for Florida- grown agricultural products which Dixie Growers, as the agent for the producers of the products; sold to Veg Service?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Dixie Growers, located in Plant City, Florida, is a producer, packer, and seller of Florida-grown agricultural products. It also acts as a sales agent for growers of Florida agricultural products, and in that capacity is a producer of agricultural products. Ms. Linda T. Lawton is the Vice President/Secretary for Dixie Growers, Inc. Mr. George Locklear is a salesman for the company. It is the practice of Dixie Growers, Inc., to pay the growers who provide it with agricultural products to be sold on the open market within 10 to 14 days of shipment unless the broker or purchaser to whom the products are sold notifies Dixie of a problem. This practice was made known to Veg Service before the incidents which led to these proceedings. Whenever Dixie receives notice of a problem with the shipment prior to payment of the grower, Dixie places a "trouble" memorandum on the top of the file. In such a case, Dixie does not usually pay the grower until the problem has been resolved with the broker and then only in an amount that does not exceed what Dixie receives from the broker or purchaser. Veg Services, Inc., is a negotiating broker of Florida agricultural products, some of which it has purchased from Dixie Growers. In this capacity Veg Services is a dealer in agricultural products. The company is located in Pompano Beach, Florida. Western Surety Company is the issuer of bonds to Veg Services, Inc., in amounts sufficient to cover the disputes involved in this proceeding. Case No. 96-3995A On June 1, 1996, Dixie Growers sold 260 boxes, (1 and 1/9th bushels each), of fancy eggplant to Veg Services. The price was $8.00 per box for a price of $2,080 for the entire shipment. On June 5, 1996, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, at a cost of $278, conducted an inspection of the 260 boxes of eggplant in Providence, Rhode Island at the premises of Tourtellot and Company, Inc. Under the section marked "Grade" in the inspection certificate, the eggplant was found to fail "to grade U.S. No. 1." On the same day as the inspection, Dixie Growers received by fax a copy of the inspection, Inspection Certificate K-195345-4. In accord with its customary practice, Dixie Growers placed a "trouble" memorandum in its file so that it would not pay the grower of the eggplant until the trouble was resolved. On June 17, 1996, Dixie Growers received a fax of the invoice from Veg Services marked, "OK." Interpreting the "OK," to mean that payment would be in full, George Locklear called Veg Service to double-check. He talked with Martin Shield and Marcie, a member of the office staff. First Marcie and then Mr. Shield stated that the invoice would be paid in full. Before the growers were paid on the strength of the representations of the two Veg Service employees made June 17, however, Deborah Lawton, Dixie's bookkeeper asked Mr. Locklear to inquire as to whether the cost of the inspection ($278,) would be deducted from the payment. Marcie told Mr. Locklear that payment would be in full with nothing deducted for the inspection. With the understanding that payment would be made in full with nothing deducted for the cost of the inspection, Dixie Growers paid the growers of the eggplant in full. On July 1, 1996, after payment had been made by Dixie Growers to the growers of the eggplant, it received a fax from Veg Services that it would be paid only $1.60 per box instead of the full $8.00 per box. When Mr. Locklear called to inquire about the fax, Marcie told him that Veg Services had made a mistake when it said that payment would be in full. Dixie Growers received payment in the amount of $416.00 leaving $1,664.00 still due. Case No. 96-3996A On April 27, 1996, Dixie Growers sold 65 boxes of medium squash, 200 boxes of select cucumber and 60 boxes of cabbages to Veg Service. No trouble with the produce was ever reported by Veg Service to Dixie Growers. Nor was there ever made a federal inspection of the produce. The total bill for the sale was $2610.00. On May 9, 1996, another sale was made by Dixie Growers to Veg Service: 154 boxes of medium zucchini, 72 boxes of small squash, 72 boxes of medium squash, 50 boxes of choice cucanelle and 120 boxes of large cucumbers. No trouble with any of the produce was ever reported by Veg Service to Dixie Growers. Nor was there a federal inspection conducted. The bill for the sale was $4,360.00. On June 12, 1996, payment was received for the April 27 sale in the amount of $1,280 leaving a balance of $1,330. The same day payment was received for the May 9 sale in the amount of $2,259.50 leaving a balance due of $2,100.50. Invoices showing the balances due for the two sales were mailed by certified mail to Veg Service. Following phone calls by Dixie Growers, at the request of Veg Service staff, the invoices were later faxed twice to Veg Service. The two balances, totalling $3,430.50, had not been paid as of final hearing. Had any trouble with either sale been communicated to Dixie Growers prior to the payment it made to the growers of the produce, then Dixie Growers would not have paid the growers until the problem was resolved. Since Veg Service did not communicate any problem with either sale in any way, Dixie Growers paid the growers. Case No. 4727A On June 6, 1996, Dixie Growers sold Veg Service 500 boxes of fancy eggplant, 200 boxes of choice eggplant, 600 boxes of large bell peppers, 200 boxes of extra large bell peppers and 50 boxes of long hot peppers. The invoice for the sale shows $14,200 due for the produce and a charge of $23.50 listed for "Temp.Recrd," for a total invoiced amount of $14,223.50. On July 17, 1996, Dixie Growers received a check from Veg Services for $10,262.50 for the June 6 sale leaving a balance of $3,961.00. When George Locklear of Dixie Growers inquired of Veg Service as to why the invoiced amount had not been fully paid, he was told that a federal inspection had shown that the peppers were smaller than as represented by Dixie Growers. This was the first time that Dixie Growers had received any notice from Veg Service that there was any trouble with the June 6 sale. The inspection was faxed to Dixie Growers on July 31, 1996, long after Dixie Growers had paid the growers of the produce. The fee for the inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture was $111.00. That fee had been deducted by Veg Service when it paid the invoice amount so that the amount claimed due by Dixie Growers in this case ($3,961) is the sum of the inspection fee ($111) and a balance not paid on the produce sold, ($3,850).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order adjudicating Veg Service, Inc., to be indebted to Dixie Growers, Inc., in the amount of $9,055.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Charles E. Lawton, President Dixie Growers, Inc. Post Office Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564-1686 Herbert Shield, President Veg Service, Inc. 150 SW 12th Avenue, Suite 370 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Western Surety Company Legal Department 101 South Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57102
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner (complainant) is entitled to recover $1,340.50 or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and Respondent surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a grower of watermelons and qualifies as a "producer" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. is listed as surety for Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. The amount and period of the bond have not been established. The time material to the amended complaint is June, 1994. Two or three weeks before Petitioner's melons were ready for harvest, Steve Helms personally came to Petitioner's home and requested to ship Petitioner's melons for ultimate retail sale. Petitioner requested to be paid "up front." Mr. Helms would not agree to pay all the money "up front" but agreed to pay some. He also agreed to pay within 14 days of the first shipment. Petitioner had had a bad experience two years previously, so he got Mr. Helms to promise to "clean up" his field. This expression is subject to some interpretation, and although Petitioner initially stated that the agreement was for Respondent broker-shipper to buy all his melons regardless of condition, Petitioner later modified his statement to say that Mr. Helms only promised not to take the best melons and leave the rest. Harvesting began May 15, 1994. Until June 10, 1994, Petitioner's usual contact with Respondent broker- shipper was Frank Favuzza, who oversaw all weighing and loading and assessed the Petitioner's melons on behalf of Respondent broker-shipper. On June 10, 1994, Mr. Helms was again personally in the field. Petitioner told Mr. Helms that he had to get the remainder of the melons off the field by Sunday, otherwise the heat would ruin them. Mr. Helms said he would wait until Monday. Petitioner believes that if the melons had been harvested by Sunday, June 12, 1994, three truckloads could have been harvested. On Monday, less than a full truckload was in good enough condition to be loaded onto a truck. A lot of melons were going bad and were left in the field to rot. On Tuesday, June 14, 1994, Petitioner's melons were weighed at Romeo, Florida and the poundage established at 29,330 pounds. Frank Favuzza estimated to Petitioner that his melons would only bring $.04/lb. From this conversation, related by Petitioner, it may be clearly inferred that Petitioner knew he would not be paid until after Respondent broker-shipper received payment from the ultimate retailer at the other end of the transaction. Petitioner's amended complaint alleged the amounts due as follows: "On June 1, 1994, #92111, 700 lbs. at $.07 equals $49.00, not $490.00; June 3, 1994, #92117, 900 lbs. at $.07 equals $63.00, not $630.00; and June 3, 1994, #92120, 790 lbs. at $.07 equals $55.30, not $553.00. Therefore Item (12) Complaint Total is amended to $1,340.00." The amendments did not alter the original claim for 6-14-94, invoice 92157 for 29,330 lbs. of melons at $.04 for $1,173.20. There was no claim for the melons that rotted in Petitioner's field. Weight tickets and Respondent's corresponding broker-shipper's bills of lading were admitted in evidence. These showed the following amounts were received by Respondent broker-shipper: 6/1/94 INVOICE 92111 46,020 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92117 45,580 net weight melons 6/3/94 INVOICE 92120 44,720 net weight melons 6/14/94 INVOICE 92157 29,330 net weight melons Petitioner testified, without refutation, that he was present at each weighing and that he had agreed to take $.07 per pound on all loads except for the June 14, 1994 load for which he was claiming $.04 per pound. The bills of lading support Petitioner's testimony as to the price per pound. The bills of lading also clearly show that the price per pound was "to farm minus labor." This notation means that the net amount to be paid Petitioner by Respondent was subject to a prior deduction for labor, but it cannot reasonably be inferred to include a deduction for shipping. Petitioner's last load of 29,330 lbs. of melons weighed on June 14, 1994 was less than a full truckload, so Respondent added melons from another farm to that truck to make up a full load. Respondent broker-shipper did not pay Petitioner for 700 pounds of the June 1, 1994, invoice 92111 truckload; for 900 pounds of the first June 3, 1994 invoice 92117 truckload; for 790 pounds of the second June 3, 1994 invoice 92120 truckload; or for any (29,330 pounds) of the June 14, 1994 invoice 92157 truckload, upon grounds that those melons were not saleable at their destination. Petitioner put in evidence Exhibit P-3 which is an accounting Respondent had sent him. It shows that Respondent broker-shipper had deducted $690.30 for labor on invoice 92111 and claimed 700 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $683.70 for labor on invoice 92117 and claimed 900 pounds could not be sold; had deducted $670.80 for labor on invoice 92120 and claimed 790 pounds could not be sold; and had paid Petitioner nothing on a June 14, 1994 truckload, invoice 92159. Invoice 92157, which corresponds to Petitioner's June 14, 1994 partial truckload of 29,330 pounds of melons, is not listed or otherwise explained in the exhibit. The exhibit is conclusionary and inexplicably is dated 1993. There is no back-up evidence to support Respondent's making these deductions. No inspection certificate or labor charges are in evidence. Petitioner's initial complaint, which he put in evidence as P-1, constitutes an admission by him. In the complaint, Petitioner contended (1) that he was selling "direct" to Respondent broker-shipper; (2) that he was selling "f.o.b."; and (3) that he was selling "Fob shipping point excectance (sic) after final inspection." Petitioner also stated therein that he was given an inspection sheet showing 46,310 lbs. of watermelons had failed inspection and he did not feel the melons that failed inspection were his melons because Frank Favuzza approved of all melons loaded from Petitioner's field and the inspection sheet did not say that the bad melons were Petitioner's melons. Somewhat contrariwise, Petitioner testified at formal hearing that he had asked Respondent broker-shipper for a government inspection certificate showing that his melons were bad and never got it. From the credible evidence as a whole, it is inferred that Petitioner sold his watermelons on the June 14, 1994 truckload at $.04 per pound contingent upon the melons arriving at their ultimate destination in saleable condition per a federal inspection. It is further inferred that the prior three loads at issue also were sold contingent upon their arriving in saleable condition. The evidence as a whole also supports a finding that Petitioner's melons left the weigh station in a condition capable of being sold for the respective prices agreed upon between Petitioner and Respondent broker-shipper. Any deterioration of melons between June 10, 1994 when Petitioner requested that the broker-shipper take the last load and June 14, 1994 when the last load actually was weighed and shipped is attributable to Respondent broker-shipper, but that fact is not significant since the lesser rate of $.04/lb. was agreed upon prior to shipping and after Respondent broker-shipper had seen and approved the loaded melons. Petitioner's foregoing evidence of delivering saleable quality melons to Respondent broker-shipper is unrefuted. The presumption is thereby created that but for some failure of Respondent broker-shipper, the melons would have arrived at their ultimate destination in saleable condition. There is no evidence of record to support Respondent's deductions for "labor," or for melons which allegedly could not be sold upon delivery at the ultimate destination. Petitioner moved ore tenus to further amend his complaint to include a prayer for reimbursement for the cost of the melons which rotted in his field and became unsaleable between June 10 and June 14, 1994 due to Respondent broker-shipper's delay in loading and to assert a claim for interest on the $1,340.50 claim. This motion was denied as too late.
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 $1,340.50, and binding Respondents to pay the full amount of $1,340.50, which in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of June, 1995, 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 2nd day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-6189A The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Accepted. Rejected as unnecessary Rejected as subordinate and mere argumentation. 5-6 Rejected as mere argumentation. Rejected as these were not the dates testified. Rejected as mere argumentation. Respondent Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc.'s PFOF: 1 Accepted. 2-4 Rejected as not proven. Accepted as to the June 10-14, 1994 load. Rejected as not proven. Not proven in whole. Covered to the extent proven. While one inference might be that a different invoice number was assigned to the combined load, that is not the only reasonable inference based on the evidence submitted. Likewise, although Petitioner apparently got some inspection certificate, that certificate is not in evidence. There is no record evidence as to what it covered. It is not reasonable to infer or guess that it covered four loads on four trucks on three dates or that there is any way to calculate from it that the only bad melons were Petitioner's melons and not those mixed in from another farm on June 14, 1994. See FOF 19-20. 8-15 Rejected as not proven. Respondent Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.'s PFOF: None filed COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Favuzza, President Steve Helms Fruit Co., Inc. Post Office Box 1682 Auburndale, Florida 33823 Tom Morton Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. Post Office Box 94-5010 Maitland, Florida 32794-5010 L. C. Stevenson 333 NW 46th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34482 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues concern the complaint by Petitioner against Respondents for the alleged failure to pay for $125.00 worth of medium zucchini squash also referred to as medium green squash. See Sections 604.15 through 604.30, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sells produce. East Coast purchases produce and resells that produce at wholesale. The transaction which is in dispute here concerns an April 25, 1990 sale of medium zucchini squash. On that date Jerry B. Portnoy, Vice President for East Coast who runs the day to day operations of the company and buys produce spoke with Petitioner. In that conversation, which took place early in the morning, Petitioner stated that he had the squash to sell. Portnoy told Petitioner that he had plenty of that form of produce on hand. Petitioner stated that this was the last picking and that he would give Portnoy a good price. The price that Petitioner mentioned was $2.50 a crate. Mr. Portnoy said that he could use about 100 crates and he reiterated that he had plenty of that type of produce on hand. That comment by Mr. Portnoy met with the remark by Petitioner which was to the effect, that there might be a few additional crates above the 100 discussed. Portnoy said that he did not need any more than 100 crates in that he had plenty of that produce on hand. As Portnoy described at hearing, he felt that he really did not even need 100 crates; however, based upon the past working relationship between the Petitioner and Portnoy he agreed to take 100 crates. Contrary to the agreement between Portnoy and the Petitioner, sometime on the evening of April 25, 1990, Petitioner delivered 236 crates of the squash. No one was at East Coast at its Jacksonville, Florida business location to receive the squash and inspect them. East Coast would not have accepted 236 crates that were delivered if it had known of that number of crates. No one was available to inspect the squash until the following morning. On April 26, 1990, Mr. Portnoy examined the squash and found that some of the product was inferior and was in a state of decay. As a consequence, Mr. Portnoy called the Petitioner on the telephone on that morning and told the Petitioner that the Petitioner had sent too many crates and some of the squash were bad. Nonetheless, Mr. Portnoy told Petitioner that he would work it out as best he could, meaning that he would sell as much of the product as possible. During contact with the Petitioner on the part of East Coast, Petitioner did not ask for a federal inspection. East Coast was able to sell all but 50 crates of the squash as delivered. It submitted payment in the amount of $465 as reflected on the face of the invoice which Petitioner sent to East Coast. That exhibit is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. It reflects that 50 crates were dumped which had they been sold would have been worth $125.00. It is that $125.00 which is in dispute. Mr. Portnoy called the Petitioner after the squash had been sold. That call took place a couple of weeks later. In the course of this conversation the Petitioner said that he did not want to hear about problems anymore and that he wanted to be paid for the full amount of all crates delivered. Mr. Portnoy said that 50 crates had been lost and that the amount being remitted through a check would relate only to those crates that had been sold. This describes the amount remitted on June 15, 1990 set out in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner replied that he did not know if he would cash the check or not. Mr. Portnoy said that the check in the amount of $465.00 was for payment in full. This concluded their business until the time of the complaint filed by the Petitioner. On that facts as reported, there was no agreement to sell more than 100 crates. The additional crates that were sold by East Coast was a gratuitous gesture on the part of East Coast for which Petitioner was paid the full amount. The 50 crates that were not paid for contained inferior products for which Petitioner was not entitled to payment. This speaks to the 50 crates that were dumped which had they been sold would have been worth $125.00.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the complaint of the Petitioner and relieves the Respondents of any financial obligation to pay the contested $125.00 claim. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of April, 1991, 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 8th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David Browning c/o David Browning Wholesale Produce 234 Church Street Starke, FL 32091 East Coast Fruit Company Jerry Portnoy, Vice President Post Office Box 2547 Jacksonville, FL 32203 James W. Sears, Esquire 511 North Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rosario and Vito Strano d/b/a Strano Farms (Strano Farms), is a grower and shipper of fresh produce in Florida City, Florida (Dade County). Respondent, Mager Corporation d/b/a Gulf Provision Company (GPC), is an agricultural dealer in Jacksonville, Florida, subject to the licensing requirements of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (agency). As such, GPC is obligated to obtain a dealer's license from the agency and to post a surety bond executed by a surety corporation to ensure that payment is made to producers for agricultural products purchased by the dealer. To meet this latter requirement, GPC has obtained a surety bond in an undisclosed amount from respondent, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. This controversy involves a dispute over payment for a shipment of tomatoes purchased from Strano Farms by GPC for further sale to retail vendors. The origins of the dispute began on or about February 2, 1987, when a salesman for Strano Farms accepted a telephone order from Neil R. Sandler, president of GPC, for two lots of "Poppa's Famous" tomatoes. The order was later memorialized by petitioner in a memorandum dated February 7, 1987 reflecting the following: Quantity Description Pkq. Grade Size Price Amount 176 Tomatoes 20# Poppa's Famous 5x6 5.60 $985.00 176 Tomatoes 20# Poppa's Famous 6x6 3.80 528.00 Palletizing .15 52.80 352 Total Due: 1566.40 In addition, Strano Farms prepared a broker's memorandum on February 5, 1987 reflecting that GPC ordered two lots of "breakers," a specific grade of tomato. However, Strano Farms contended the reference to "breakers" was a typographical error by the clerical employee who prepared the document and that actually a different grade had been ordered. According to Rosario Strano, a partner and owner of petitioner, Sandler ordered 176 cartons each of light pink and pink tomatoes. This was corroborated by the fact that in early February, 1987 petitioner had no breaker tomatoes in stock. Sandler could not dispute this since more than fifteen months had passed since the order was placed, and he had no independent recollection of the transaction. The United States Department of Agriculture has established a color classification for tomatoes that sets forth the color of tomatoes by stage of maturity. In ascending order of maturity and color, they are green, breakers, turning, pink, light red and red. Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc. (Homestead) is the exclusive packer and shipper for Strano Farms. Homestead processed GPC's order and shipped the tomatoes to GPC on February 3, 1987. Prior to the shipment, sub-lot inspections of the produce from which GPC's shipment was drawn were made by an agency inspector on January 28 and February 2, 1987. The inspector's report indicates that the produce had a "mixed color", that there was no decay and the produce was within the tolerance limits for defects. It reflected further that the shipment met the pink and light pink standards. When the tomatoes arrived in Jacksonville on February 4 or 5, Sandler inspected the produce but was not satisfied with the condition of the tomatoes. He ordered a federal inspection the same day. The report reflected that the 6x6 lot of tomatoes was within federal standards while the 5x6 lot deviated slightly because of bruising and decay. However, the tomatoes conformed to pink and light pink standards. Sandler telephoned Strano Farms and requested that a price adjustment be made. When no agreement could be reached, GPC unilaterally adjusted the amount due to $894.80 and tendered Strano Farms a check in that amount. This amount was based upon a total price of $880.00 for both lots of tomatoes, $52.80 for pelletizing, less $38.00 spent by GPC for an inspection. The total payment was $618.80 less than originally agreed upon by the parties, or the amount being claimed by petitioner. Petitioner contends the adjustment made by respondent is "excessive" and not justified by the actual condition of the tomatoes. Strano Farms is willing to allow an adjustment of up to $1.15 per box for that percentage of boxes in the 5x6 lot that failed to meet standards. This adjustment is consistent with the quality of the tomatoes reflected in the federal inspection report. It is also consistent with the industry practice that any price adjustments should correspond with the condition of the produce as reflected on the federal inspection report. Because the adjustment proposed by petitioner is reasonable and consistent with the report, it should be made. Therefore, respondent should deduct $1.15 per box for those boxes in the 5x6 lot that failed to meet federal standards because of bruising and decay. It should also deduct the cost of the inspection report ($38) and pay petitioner all other amounts due.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent pay petitioner the additional amount due within thirty days from date of final order. In the event payment is not timely made, the surety company should be required to pay this amount. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should revoke the Petitioner's exemption from the requirement to obtain a General Permit for Disposal of Tomato Wash Water under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.805.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Harllee Packing, Inc., formerly known as Harllee-Gargiulo, Inc., is a grower and shipper of Florida vegetables that generates wastewater from its tomato-washing operation. On January 8, 1992, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), the predecessor to the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-660.805, which not only provided for a General Permit for Disposal of Tomato Wash Water but also provided for an exemption from the requirement to obtain a permit under certain circumstances and conditions. (The rule was renumbered in 1996 and is now Rule 62-660.805.) In 1992, the Petitioner requested an exemption for its tomato-washing operation and entered into discussions with DER regarding the tomato-washing operation. On October 6, 1992, the Petitioner submitted information in support of its request for an exemption. DER issued the Petitioner a Notice of Permit Exemption on November 13, 1992. The Notice of Permit Exemption stated that the information submitted on October 6, 1992, provided "reasonable assurance that proper operation will occur to prevent violations of the Department's rules and regulations." There was no other evidence as to why the exemption was issued. At the time of and since issuance of the Notice of Permit Exemption, the Petitioner's tomato-washing operation has used approximately 16,500 gallons of wash-water a day. After use in the tomato-washing operation, the tomato wash-water is loaded from a storage tank into dedicated tankers for transportation and uniform distribution on uncultivated agricultural fields in accordance with the Notice of Permit Exemption. The Notice of Permit Exemption prohibits distribution during or within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than a 10-year, 1-hour storm and requires a minimum 5-day resting period between distributions to any one distribution site. Runoff outside the prescribed distribution sites also is prohibited. Although no witness testified, it can be inferred from these provisions themselves that their purpose was to control entry of the tomato wash-water into the groundwater and to prevent surface water runoff. The Notice of Permit Exemption warned that it could be revoked if the tomato-washing operation was substantially modified, if the basis for the exemption was determined to be materially incorrect, or if the Petitioner failed to comply with the specific conditions in the Notice of Permit Exemption. On January 28, 1998, DEP issued a Notice of Exemption Revocation. There was no evidence that the tomato-washing operation has been modified or that the Petitioner failed to comply with the specific conditions in the Notice of Permit Exemption. The exemption was revoked because "tomato washing operations discharging between 5000 and 50,000 gallons per day are required to obtain industrial wastewater general permits from the Department."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking the Petitioner's exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry Cole, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 16th day of October, 1998. Ricardo Muratti, Assistant General Counsel Jennifer Fitzwater, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
