The Issue Whether or not Respondent, Dixie Growers, Inc., is indebted to Petitioner, Leah Raulerson, for agriculture produce purchased and not paid for in the amount of $3,722.49.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. During times material, Petitioner, Leah Raulerson, was an agricultural producer within the meaning of Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes and concentrated primarily in the production of peppers. During times material, Respondent, Dixie Growers, Inc., was an agricultural dealer within the meaning of Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, and wholesaler and purchased peppers from Petitioner during May and June, 1992. Respondent, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, issued a surety bond to Respondent Dixie during times material. During late May and June, 1992, Petitioner sold various types of pepper including hungarian wax, finger hots, long hots, bell pepper, fancy cubanelle and jalopeno to Respondent Dixie. During times material, Petitioner inquired of one of Respondent Dixie's owners, Charles Lawton, what the wholesale market was bringing for the type of peppers that she produced and desired to sell. Respondent Dixie advised that the average wholesale price was $8.00 per box. Petitioner told Respondent Dixie, that she could sell her peppers for that price but if the market deteriorated to the point where the price was $4.00 or less per box that she should be advised whereupon she would cease picking the peppers as her labor and other related costs would be below her breakeven point of $4.00 per box. Respondent Dixie, advised Petitioner that he (Charles Lawton) would let her know if the market declined. The agreement was struck and Petitioner was advised by Respondent Dixie to "bring the peppers on." Based on their agreement, Petitioner continued picking the peppers. Petitioner delivered to Respondent Dixie, a load of the various types of peppers that she produced and expected to be compensated at the rate of an average of $8.00 per box for her produce. Petitioner was not paid for the peppers at that time nor was she told that she should not bring any more peppers to Respondent's warehouse. Approximately two weeks from the date of delivery, Petitioner was paid an average of $1.03 per box by Respondent Dixie. Petitioner provided copies of the wholesale market reports for the types of peppers that she produced and sold to Respondent, Dixie, during May and June, 1992. The reports reflect an average wholesale price of $8.00 per box. Petitioner is owed by Respondent Dixie, the sum of $3,722.49 for nonpayment of produce (peppers) that she delivered to Respondent Dixie during May and June, 1992. Respondent Dixie, has countered that Petitioner's produce was bad and that the market had declined to the point whereupon they (Dixie Growers) were only able to obtain approximately $1.03 per box for the produce that Petitioner sold to Respondent Dixie. However, Respondent Dixie, failed to present any credible evidence which would establish that either Petitioner's produce was bad or that they were only able to obtain $1.03 as contended. No evidence was presented that the market declined or situation was anything different from the prices Petitioner was quoted and as reflected by the prices shown in the wholesale market reports. It is more probable than not that Respondent Dixie received the amounts reflected in the wholesale market reports for the produce that it purchased from Petitioner during May and June, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Agriculture, Bureau of License and Bond, issue a Final Order requiring that Respondent, Dixie Growers, Inc., pay to Petitioner the sum of $3,722.49 as claimed for agricultural produce purchased from Petitioner. In the event that Respondent Dixie fails to pay Petitioner, within 30 days of the date of the Department's Final Order, the sum of $3,722.49, that Respondent, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, as surety, remit to the Department that sum which should then be timely remitted to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 17th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Terry Lawton P. O. Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564 U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company Legal Department P. O. Box 1138 Baltimore, Maryland 21203-0000 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture The Capitol - PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Dixie Growers, Inc. P. O. Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol - PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0350
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I hereby recommend that the Petitioner's challenge to the Department's determination of sales taxes due herein pursuant to Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, be denied and that the revised assessment notices be upheld as issued. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Davis, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert F. Nunez, Esquire Post Office Box 12726 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Mercer Farrington, Esquire Post Office Box 1548 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty of investigating and prosecuting complaints against real estate professionals in the State of Florida. Respondent is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been duly issued license numbers 0263586, 0261820, 0260480, and 0300938. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker with the following entities: Avatar Realty, Inc., 4550 Poinciana Boulevard, Kissimmee, Florida; Avatar Communities, Inc., 201 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, Florida 33134; Golden Gate Realty, Inc., 4736C Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida; and Avatar Condominium Management, Inc., 201 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, Florida. Prior to February 20, 1987, Respondent was the owner of a convenience store known as Hemispheres Food Mart, which was located in the Hemispheres condominium and office complex in Hollywood, Florida. On or about February 20, 1987, Respondent, as owner, entered into a three month exclusive right of sale listing agreement with South Florida Business Negotiators, Inc., for the sale of the Hemispheres Food Mart, at an asking price of $100,000. In connection with the foregoing listing agreement, the Respondent represented and warranted as true that the: "Business doing $286,000 yearly net $55,000 ambitious owner can improve potential to $350,000 yearly." On or about April 1, 1987, the Respondent, as seller, entered into a "Contract for Purchase and Sale of Stock of Hemispheres Food Mart, Inc., D/B/A Hemispheres Mini Mart" with Kenny Mohammed and Annie Mohammed, his wife, as purchasers, to sell the corporate stock of Hemispheres Food Mart, Inc. to the Mohammeds. This contract was executed by the Mohammeds on April 2, 1987. The first line of the contract reflects an erroneous date for the contract of May 5, 1987. Paragraph 12 of the "Contract for Purchase and Sale of Stock of Hemispheres Food Mart, Inc., D/B/A Hemispheres Mini Mart", provided as follows: 12. PURCHASER'S RIGHT TO INSPECTION OF SELLER'S RECORDS. The Purchaser, within 72 hours after the con- tract has been signed and executed by both parties, shall have the right, either by himself or through his accountant, to inspect the financial records and receipts of the Seller to verify the amount of sales of the Seller on a weekly basis. The Purchaser shall verify that the average gross sales on a weekly basis for the Seller, during the time period from January 1 through April 1 (the season) exceed the sum of $8,400.00 per week. If the Purchaser by himself or through his accountant determines that the gross sales for the Seller are less than $8,400.00 per week, the Purchaser shall have the unilateral right to terminate its obligations under the terms of this Contract. Seller shall supply Purchaser with copies of 1985 and 1986 tax returns. The Seller agrees to allow the Purchaser to sit in the place of business for a period of one week to observe and verify that the stated daily gross sales of the business exceed $1,200.00. If during the one-week observation period the daily gross sales do not meet $1,200.00, the Purchaser reserves the right to cancel this Agreement and the deposit held in escrow shall be refunded to them. On May 7, 1987, Respondent and the Mohammeds executed an addendum to their contract. Paragraph 23 of the addendum provides as follows: 23. INSPECTION OF RECORDS It is hereby agreed that both parties shall have complied with paragraph 12, PURCHASERS' RIGHT TO INSPECTION OF SELLER'S RECORDS, and therefore same shall be considered null and void. The representation contained in the contract relating to the level of sales was for sales made during the "season" between January 1 and April 1. Mr. Mohammed exercised his right to observe the sales during the week that began April 6, 1987. During the week long observation period, the sales for two of the days did not equal $1,200. Mr. Raymond provided various records and cash register tapes for the period January 1 - April 1, 1987, for inspection by Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Mohammed's financial adviser. Following the inspection of these records and the one-week observation period, Mr. Mohammed, against the advice of his attorney, elected to close the transaction. The transaction closed in May 1987. (The closing statement signed by Respondent and the Mohammeds does not reflect the day in May the transaction closed.) Subsequent to the closing, the Mohammeds sued Respondent in a civil action brought in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida. The "Final Judgment for Plaintiffs" entered September 19, 1989, by Circuit Judge J. Cail Lee provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ... [T]he Court having heard the testimony of all witnesses and having examined the proofs offered by the respective parties, the court finds that he testimony of the two witnesses was to the effect the defendant, Warren Raymond, falsified sales during the sales verification period to induce the plaintiffs, Kenny Mohammed and Annie Mohammed, to complete the purchase of the Hemispheres Mini Mart, and that constituted fraud, and that constituted a basis not only for compensatory damages but punitive damages as well. It is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiffs have a judgment against the defendant for fraud in the sum of $750.00 compensatory damages and $15,000.00 punitive damages ... Respondent appealed the judgment entered against him by Judge Lee. While the case was on appeal, Respondent and the Mohammeds settled the civil suit. Respondent did not admit any wrongdoing in the Settlement Agreement. Thereafter, on March 26, 1990, Judge Lee entered a "Final Judgment of Settlement" in the civil action which vacated the "Final Judgment for Plaintiffs" that he had entered September 19, 1989, and which dismissed with prejudice the civil action the Mohammeds had brought against Respondent. There was no competent evidence presented at the formal administrative hearing that Respondent had (a) misrepresented the value of the premises or potential of the business, (b) generated false sales during the observation period, (c) falsified cash register receipts, (d) conspired with his friends to falsify sales, or (e) otherwise engaged in fraud during the course of his business dealings with the Mohammeds.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint brought against Respondent in this proceeding. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of January, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 28th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5320 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7 and 11 (the first of the two paragraphs that are numbered 11) are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the contract was dated May 5, 1987, is rejected as being contrary to the finding that the contract was dated April 1, 1987. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The use of the term "induced" is rejected as being contrary to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 9 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the record. The last sentence is rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 (the second of the two paragraphs that are numbered 11) are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7-14 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed finding that the contract was dated May 5, 1987, is rejected as being contrary to the finding that the contract was dated April 1, 1987. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 15 and 16 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: James Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Senior Attorney 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Norman Segall, Esquire Bentata Hoet & Associates & Zamora, Segall, Lacasa & Schere 3191 Coral Way - Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be considered in this matter is whether Petitioner meets the requisite qualifications for certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE).
Findings Of Fact Otto A. Lawrenz, a Native American, is the sole owner of Petitioner, Mechanical Air Products (MAP), located in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner was certified from December 12, 1992, through December 12, 1993, as a minority business enterprise (MBE). Recertification for Petitioner as an MBE for the period December 12, 1993 through December 12, 1994, occurred without incident following application by Petitioner. Petitioner is a business which specializes in provision of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment to its customers. Following application in December, 1994, Respondent denied Petitioner's request for recertification as an MBE by letter dated January 6, 1995. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's recertification resulted from amendments to Respondent's definition of "[r]egular dealer" as set forth in Rule 60A-2.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, and Respondent's determination that Petitioner did not meet that definition. Petitioner does not own, operate or maintain a store, warehouse or other establishment. As stated by Otto A. Lawrenz in correspondence to Respondent and reaffirmed by him at the final hearing, Petitioner is: manufacturer representative type of business that buys directly from various suppliers and factories I [Lawrenz] repre- sent. The products are purchased from this company and shipped direct to customers ship to address. I [Lawrenz] do not stock these products for inventory. Petitioner is presently provided some storage space free of charge by another, unaffiliated business, for storage of some products.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying the application for certification as an MBE. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 14th day of August, 1995. DON W. 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 14th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's post-hearing submittal consisted of documentation, not provided at the final hearing, dealing with Petitioner's heritage, and his arguments of the law relative to this case. Consequently, those matters are addressed as not relevant and argumentative for purposes of this proceeding. Petitioner may attack the rules applied to his case in a separate rule challenge proceeding. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-4. Accepted, but not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: Otto A. Lawrenz Mechanical Air Products P O Box 17746 Jacksonville, FL 32245 Joseph L. Shields, Esq. Commission On Minority Economic And Business Development 107 W Gaines St., 201 Collins Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2005 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development 107 W. Gaines St., 201 Collins Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2005
Findings Of Fact The name Zorba's Restaurant and Lounge has been continuously used by the Petitioner or its predecessors in business as the name of a restaurant and lounge located at 504-508-510 Athens Street, Tarpon Springs, Florida, for a period of over ten years. Kaliope Padides was at one time director of a corporation named Zorba Lounge, Inc. which originally owned and operated the aforementioned business. In 1975 this business was sold and the corporation, Zorba Lounge, Inc. was dissolved involuntarily on November 14, 1975. The purchaser was required to continue using the name Zorba Restaurant and Lounge. Two or three years thereafter, the brother-in-law of Kaliope Padides, Peter Padides, bought the business and operated it as a sole proprietorship until December, 1982. At that time, the business burned and Peter asked Kaliope and her husband, Nicholas, to assist him in operating the business. They elected to form a corporation and instructed their attorney to reserve the name Zorba's. On December 23, 1982, counsel for Anthanasios and Linda Maillis sent a letter to the Division of Corporations, State of Florida, reserving the name Zorba's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. The Maillises had instructed their counsel to reserve the name Zorba's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. although they were aware of the business operated by Peter Padides, because they thought the name Zorba's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. was not protected. On December 27, 1982, counsel for Kaliope, Nicholas and Peter Padides sent a letter to the Division of Corporations, State of Florida, reserving the name Zorba, Inc. On December 27, 1982, the Division of Corporations, State of Florida, reserved the name Zorba's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. and Zorba, Inc. and forwarded to the respective parties confirmation of said name reservations. On January 4, 1953, the Articles of Corporation for Zorba, Inc. were filed and sealed by the Secretary of State, State of Florida on January 13, 1983. On January 6, 1983, the Articles of Corporation for Zorba's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. were filed and sealed by the Secretary of State, State of Florida on January 10, 1983. The Maillises reserved the name and incorporated in the name Zorba's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. knowing the existence of the business operating in the name of Zorba's Restaurant and Lounge and with the intent to capitalize on the use of that name in operating a similar business located in the same geographic area. The reservation of this name was made in bad faith, and for the purpose of engaging in unfair competition.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Respondent's name of Zorba's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. be rejected and its reservation of the name revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John G. Fatolitis, Esq. One North Pinellas Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 33589 Edwardo R. Latour, Esq. Yanchuck, Thompson & Young, P.A. 1100 South Pinellas Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 33589 William G. Stevens, III, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondents Wilson and Son Sales, Inc. (Wilson), and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, as surety, are indebted to Petitioner for certain Florida-grown agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a producer of several vegetable crops in Hardee County. Wilson is a dealer in agricultural products. More specifically, Wilson operates an agricultural broker business in Plant City. Wilson’s surety is Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Although Wilson has written contracts with some producers, Wilson does not have written contracts with all producers. In the absence of a contract, the terms of Wilson’s broker services are almost always the same; that is, Wilson gets a commission of 10 percent on the sale of the produce and $.35 per box for palletizing and pre-cooling the produce, in return for which Wilson makes a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Wilson in January 2007, about bringing flat beans to Wilson to sell. Wilson expressed interest and informed Petitioner about Wilson’s standards terms as described above. These terms were agreeable to Petitioner and he brought the beans to Wilson later that month. Although Petitioner and Wilson had no written contract, the parties’ mutual understanding of the terms of their agreement created an enforceable oral contract. Wilson sold Petitioner’s beans and no dispute arose from this first transaction. The parties’ subsequent transactions for other produce were undertaken pursuant to the same oral contract terms. Because Wilson works on a commission basis, it is generally in Wilson’s self-interest to sell growers’ produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Robert Wilson, Wilson’s owner, by telephone in February 2007, and informed Wilson of his plans to grow wax beans and “hard squash.” It was not stated in the record whether all three varieties of hard squash later grown by Petitioner, butternut squash, acorn squash, and spaghetti squash, were discussed by Petitioner and Robert Wilson during their February 2007 telephone conversation. A major dispute in the case was whether the parties’ February discussion about hard squash created some obligation on the part of Wilson beyond the oral contract terms described above. Petitioner claims that Wilson encouraged him to plant the squash and that Petitioner would not have planted the squash otherwise. Petitioner never made clear, however, what additional obligation was created by Robert Wilson’s encouragement beyond the obligation to accept delivery of and make good faith efforts to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price. Petitioner did not use the word “guarantee,” but his claim seems to be that Wilson became obligated to guarantee that the squash would be sold for a price close to the price published in the Columbia (South Carolina) Market Report, a periodic publication of produce prices. Such an obligation on the part of a broker is contrary to the general practice in the trade. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove more than that Robert Wilson thought he could sell Petitioner’s squash and had a genuine interest in acting as broker for Petitioner’s squash. The evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of a contractual guarantee that Wilson would obtain a certain price for Petitioner’s hard squash or do more than was promised with regard to the beans that Wilson had sold for Petitioner; that is, to try to sell the produce for the best price. When Petitioner’s wax beans were picked in late April, he brought them to Wilson to sell. No dispute arose regarding the sale of the wax beans. Petitioner brought squash to Wilson in five deliveries between May 12 and May 29, 2007. Petitioner said that on one of these deliveries, he had to leave the boxed squash in the parking lot of Wilson’s facility because there was so much cantaloupe that had been delivered ahead of him. Petitioner says he was told by a Wilson employee that the squash would not be put in the cooler. Petitioner thinks Wilson was more interested in moving the cantaloupe than the hard squash. Petitioner thinks his squash was not put in the cooler or was put in too late. Wilson denies that Petitioner’s squash was not put into the cooler or was put in late. Robert Wilson claims that he made many calls in an effort to sell Petitioner’s squash, but he could not find interested buyers for all of the squash because (1) the demand for hard squash dried up, (2) some of Petitioner’s squash was of low quality, and (3) the squash began to spoil. Petitioner denied these allegations. Petitioner received invoices and other paperwork from Wilson showing that Wilson sold Petitioner’s first delivery of 490 boxes of acorn squash for $10.18 per box. It sold Petitioner’s second delivery of 519 boxes of acorn squash for $2.08 per box. For Petitioner’s third delivery of 110 boxes of acorn squash and 240 boxes of spaghetti squash, Wilson “dumped” the acorn squash by giving it to away for free to the Society of St. Andrews food bank, and sold the spaghetti squash for $5.15 per box. Wilson sold petitioner’s fourth delivery of 279 boxes of butternut squash for $.55 per box.1 Competent substantial evidence in the record established that it is a regular occurrence for agricultural products awaiting sale to decay and become unsellable, and for the broker to dump the products in a landfill or give the products to a charitable organization and then provide the grower a receipt for tax deduction purposes. It was undisputed that Wilson did not notify Petitioner before disposing of his squash. Petitioner claims he should have been notified by Wilson if the squash was beginning to spoil. However, Petitioner did not prove that prior notification was a term of their oral contract. Petitioner claims further that the federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act required Wilson to notify Petitioner before dumping the squash and to have the squash inspected to determine whether, in fact, it was spoiled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, this federal law is not applicable. Competent substantial evidence in the record established that the market for agricultural products fluctuates and, at times, can fluctuate rapidly. For hard squash, which is normally prepared in an oven, the market demand can drop dramatically due to the onset of warm weather simply because people tend not to cook hard squash dishes in warm weather. Petitioner’s squash was being marketed in May, which means the beginning of warm weather for most areas of the United States. This fact supports Wilson’s claim that the demand for hard squash had been good, but fell rapidly just at the time Wilson was trying to sell Petitioner’s squash. The problem with the claims made by Petitioner in this case is simply one of insufficient proof. It is not enough for Petitioner to offer theories about what he thinks happened or to raise questions which are not fully answered. Petitioner had no proof that his squash was not put in Wilson’s cooler, that his squash did not begin to decay, that the demand for hard squash did not fall rapidly, that Wilson did not make reasonable efforts to sell the squash, that Wilson had willing buyers for Petitioner’s squash at a better price, or that Wilson sold squash from other growers at a better price. Petitioner’s evidence for his claims consisted primarily of market price reports that he contends show the approximate price Wilson should have gotten for the hard squash. Market price reports have some relevance to the issues in this case, but competent evidence was presented that the prices quoted in the publications are not always reliable to indicate the price a grower can expect to get on any given day, because there are factors that cause the published market price to be an inflated price (and applicable to the highest grade of produce) and because the market price can change rapidly with a change in demand for the product. The oral contract between Petitioner and Wilson required Wilson to try to get the best price for Petitioner’s squash, not some particular price appearing in a particular market price report. Petitioner did not show that Wilson got a better price for hard squash of equal quality, or that other brokers in the area got a better price for hard squash of equal quality at the times relevant to this case. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove that Wilson did not make a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s amended claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact ALS is a Florida corporation which filed an application for DBE certification on or about August 21, 1996. On December 13, 1996, the Department issued the notice of intent to deny Petitioner’s application. ALS is owned by Rachel and Bobby Lines. Mr. Lines owns forty percent of the company, his wife the remaining sixty. Mrs. Lines serves as president for the corporation. ALS is in the business of providing seeding and grassing services for construction contracts. Mr. and Mrs. Lines have been in this business since the 1970s. Mrs. Lines has a bachelor’s degree in business and has always had an active role in the family business. In 1979 and 1980 Mrs. Lines borrowed $10,000 and invested the money in ALS. These loans were secured by assets which did not belong to Mr. Lines. Unlike his wife, Mr. Lines was not personally liable for the loans. Similarly, in 1981 and 1983 Mrs. Lines obtained loans for which she was personally responsible and used the funds to benefit ALS. All loans secured by Mrs. Lines were repaid by Petitioner. During the years the loans were secured, Mr. Lines did not borrow monies, for which he was personally responsible, to fund ALS business activities. In short, Mr. Lines made no capital contribution to the business commensurate with the funding Mrs. Lines put into the business. When the Petitioner was incorporated in 1980, one hundred percent of the corporate stock was placed in Mr. Lines’ name. Although Mrs. Lines agreed to this arrangement, it did not truly reflect the partnership that she and her husband enjoyed regarding the business. Moreover, the issuance of the stock in her husband’s name did not accurately consider and compensate her for the loans for which she personally would have been liable had the company not repaid the sums she secured in its behalf. Mrs. Lines has worked full-time for the Petitioner since 1986. It is undisputed that she is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. In 1991, Mr. Lines conveyed sixty percent of the Petitioner’s stock to his wife. Mrs. Lines became president of ALS at the same time. In 1995, ALS was certified by Palm Beach County, the Palm Beach County Aviation Authority, and the South Florida Water Management District as a minority business enterprise. While it is apparent both Mr. and Mrs. Lines have contributed “sweat equity” to their company, only Mrs. Lines has personally been liable for loans taken out in order to put money into the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order granting Petitioner’s application for certification as a DBE. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 4th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Ms. Diedre Grubbs, MS #58 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mary S. Miller Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon-Burns Bldg, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mary Piccard, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral testimony and the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner, L. L. Hiers was a "producer" of agricultural products in the state of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. (Nichols) was a licensed "dealer in agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, issued license number 1547 by the Department, and bonded by U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Fidelity) for the sum of $50,000.00 bond number 790103-10-115-88-1, with an effective date of March 22, 2988 and a termination date of March 22, 1989. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Nichols was authorized to do business in the state of Florida. The Complaint was timely filed by Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes. Prior to Petitioner selling or delivering any watermelons (melons) to Nichols, Petitioner and Nichols agreed verbally that: (a) Petitioner would sell Nichols melons on a per pound basis at a price to be quoted by Nichols on the day of shipment, (b) Petitioner would harvest and load the melons on trucks furnished by Nichols (c) a weight ticket with the weight of the truck before and after loading would be furnished to Petitioner; (d) Nichols or its agent in the field would have the authority to reject melons at the place of shipment (loading) which did not meet the quality or grade contracted for by Nichols; (e) the melons were to be of U.S. No. 1 grade and; (f) settlement was to be made within a reasonable time after shipment. Although Nichols assisted Petitioner in obtaining the crew to harvest and load the melons, Petitioner had authority over the crew and was responsible for paying the crew. On a daily basis, Petitioner would contact Nichols and obtain the price being paid for melons that day. The price was marked in the field book with the net weight of each load. Nichols contends that the price quoted each day was the general price melons were bringing on the market that day, but the price to be paid Petitioner was the price Nichols received for the melons at their destination minus a 1 cent per pound commission for Nichols, taking into consideration freight, if any. Nichols was not acting at Petitioner's agent in the sale of the melons for the account of the petitioner on a net return basis nor was Nichols acting as a negotiating broker between the Petitioner and the buyer. Nichols did not make the type of accounting to Petitioner as required by Section 604.22, Florida Statutes, had Nichols been Petitioner's agent. The prices quoted by Nichols to Petitioner each day was the agreed upon price to be paid for melons shipped that day subject to any adjustment for failure of the melons to meet the quality or grade contracted for by Nichols. On June 10, 1988, Petitioner contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 6 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of each truckload of melons shipped that day. Petitioner shipped 4 loads of melons on June 10, 1988 but only 3 loads are in dispute, as follows: (a) load no. 10891 weighing 45,830 lbs. for which Nichols paid 3 cents per pound; (b) load no. 10892 weighing 43,950 lbs. for which Nichols paid 5 cents per pound and; (c) load 10893 weighing 47,190 lbs. for which Nichols paid 5 cents per pound. On June 22, 1988, Petitioner contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid ford melons shipped that day was 5.25 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight the loads shipped that day. Only load no. 10174 weighing 44,550 lbs. for which Nichols paid 3 cents per pound is in dispute. On June 23, 1988, Petitioner contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped that day was 5.5 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of the loads shipped that day. Two loads were shipped, but only load no. 11227 weighing 48,490 pounds for which Nichols paid 5 cents per lbs. is in dispute. The differences in the price paid for each load and the agreed upon price are as follows: (a) load no. 10891-$1324.90; (b) load no. 10892-$479.50; (c) load no. 10893-$471.90; (d) load no. 11174-$891.00 and; (c) load no. 11227- $242.45. The total amount in dispute is $3,419.75. Nichols contends that load no. 10891 was rejected because it failed to pass government inspection due to quality, and that the quality of load nos. 10982, 10893, 1174 and 1122 was poor, resulting in a lower price than the price agreed upon. There was insufficient evidence to support this contention. Nichols has refused to pay Petitioner the difference between the agreed upon price for load nos. 10891, 10892, 10893, 11174 and 11227 and the price paid by Nichols as indicated on the settlement sheet. The difference is $3,419.75, and is owed to Petitioner by Nichols.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. be ordered to pay to Petitioner, L. L. Hiers the sum of $3,419.75. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent, Jay Nichols, Inc. fails to timely pay Petitioner, L. L. Hiers as ordered, then Respondent, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. be ordered to pay the Department as required by section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl Hiers, Qualified Representative Route 5, Box 339 Dunnellon, Florida 32630 Steve Nichols, Vice President Jay Nichols, Inc. Qualified Representative Post Office Box 1705 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents owe Petitioner approximately $2,018.33 for a quantity of watermelons which Petitioner alleges he sold to Respondents; secondarily, 1 The name of Co-Respondent U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. has been added to the style in this case and the name of the Florida Department of Agriculture deleted as a party in correction of obvious error in the previous titling of the case. resolution of this issue requires a determination of whether Respondents acted as an agent for Petitioner as opposed to a direct purchase of Petitioner's melons by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a farmer who produces agricultural products, including watermelons. Respondent Southern Farms is a dealer of such products in the course of normal business activity. Respondent U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company is the bonding agent for Respondent Southern Farms, pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. Petitioner’s testimony at the final hearing establishes that Respondent Southern Farms, Inc., is indebted to Petitioner for the total sum of $2,018.33 with regard to purchase of 47,350 pounds of watermelons belonging to Petitioner on or about June 17, 1996. In the absence of presentment of any evidence at the final hearing in support of the claim of Respondent Southern Farms, as set forth in Southern Farms’ “Answer Of Respondent” filed on November 1, 1996, that no business dealings had been had between Petitioner and Southern Farms, such claim is not credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents are indebted to Petitioner for the total sum of $2,018.33 with regard to purchase of 47,350 pounds of watermelons belonging to Petitioner on or about June 17, 1996.DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bo Bass 2829 Southwest SR 45 Newberry, FL 32669 Southern Legal Farms, Inc. Legal Department Post Office Box 1975 Salisbury, MD 21802 Elizabeth Stosur US Fidelity and Guaranty Co. Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203-1138 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Respondents are indebted to Petitioner for 35 boxes of beans sold by Petitioner to Respondent, Weis-Buy Services, Inc., and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Weis-Buy Services, Inc., is a dealer in agricultural products licensed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Respondent, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company of Maryland acts as surety for Weis-Buy. On January 5, 1995, Mark A. Underwood, Vice President of the Petitioner, sold to Respondent, Weis-Buy Services, Inc., 35 boxes of beans. This sale was the result of the order placed by Hank Douglas, a duly authorized employee of Weis-Buy. The price agreed to by the Petitioner and Weis-Buy was $28.55 per box, for a total purchase price of $999.25. The beans sold by Petitioner to Weis-Buy had been purchased by Petitioner from another grower, Suncoast Farms. There was no written contract between Petitioner and Suncoast or between Petitioner and Weis-Buy. Weis-Buy took delivery of the beans at Petitioner's dock in Homestead, Florida, on January 5, 1995. The beans were loaded into a refrigerated truck in the employ of Weis- Buy on January 5, 1995. From Homestead, the truck drove to Belle Glade, Florida, a trip of approximately 3.5 hours. In Belle Glade, the truck picked up a load of radishes. The truck then went to Immokalee, Florida, where it picked up a quantity of squash. The following day, the truck picked up a load of cherry tomatoes. On January 9, 1995, the beans were inspected by a federal inspector in Columbus, Ohio. 1/ The inspector noted on his inspection report that the beans showed evidence of freeze damage that was ". . . so located as to indicate freezing injury occurred after packing but not at present location". The inspection report noted that the beans were to be dumped. The parties disagree as to when the freeze damage to the beans occurred. Because Weis-Buy believes that the freeze damage occurred before it took delivery of the beans, it has refused to pay Petitioner for the 35 boxes of beans. The reason Weis-Buy believes that the freeze damage occurred before the beans were loaded onto the truck is because the other vegetables that were transported by the refrigerated truck were not damaged. Partly because the beans had been purchased from another grower, Mr. Underwood inspected the beans immediately prior to their being loaded onto Weis- Buy's truck. Based on his testimony, it is found that there was no freeze damage to the beans when they were loaded on Weis-Buy's truck on January 5, 1995. It is found that the freeze damage to the beans revealed by the federal inspection on January 9, 1995, occurred after the beans had been delivered to Weis-Buy. Consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner fulfilled its obligations under the verbal contract and is entitled to be paid the sum of $999.25.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions contained herein, that finds Respondent Weis-Buy Services, Inc., is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $999.25, directs Weis-Buy Services, Inc., to make payment to Petitioner in the amount of $999.25 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, and provides that if payment in full of this $999.25 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company of Maryland, as Weis-Buy's surety. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 16th day of February 1996.
