The Issue The issues presented in this case concern claims made by the Petitioner related to the delivery of agricultural products, namely watermelons, to the Respondent, Young, which petitioner claims have not been paid for. The claim has been advanced pursuant to Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. The disputed amount is $9,226.30. FINDINGS OF FACT 1/ Petitioner, who does business as Crawford Melon Sales, made an oral agreement with Respondent, Danny Lewis Young, who trades as Hugh Young Produce, to sell U.S. No. 1 watermelons for the price of .03 cents or .025 cents f.o.b. The total charge for the watermelons delivered and associated costs was $23,559.20, of which $14,332.90 has been paid, leaving a balance of $9,226.30. The watermelons were delivered in Florida to drivers who signed invoices of receipt at the time of shipment. The drivers were individuals dispatched by the Respondent Young or employed by the Petitioner. The exact dates of delivery are set forth in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1. All shipments were sent to Tennessee. The trucks were very tightly packed at the request of Respondent Young. Time in transport varied depending on whether the drivers were union affiliated. The union drivers would not drive for the same length of time before stopping, as contrasted with the non-union drivers. Jessie Johnson, who was a driver in the delivery of two of the loads, found 75 to 100 bad melons in his initial load delivered to Nashville, Tennessee. In the second load, Johnson observed 65 to 70 melons that were damaged to include some broken melons. Some of that group of 65 to 70 melons had been damaged at a time when they were unloaded in Clarksville, Tennessee. The 65 to 70 damaged melons which Johnson testified about in the second load were returned to Nashville, Tennessee to be Inspected. Each of the loads which were transported by Jessie Johnson and his brother Leroy Johnson contained 1,500 to 1,800 melons in the truck bed. Randall Harper, who had been employed by the Respondent Young, established that in those loads of 50,000 to 60,000 pounds, which are in dispute, there would he a certain amount of watermelons that were bruised because of their placement on the bottom of the stack in the truck bed. The Johnson brothers and Harper were not present at times when the federal agricultural inspector in Nashville, Tennessee, examined the subject loads of watermelons. Michael W. Golightly, an employee with the United States Department of Agriculture, was the individual who inspected some watermelons at issue. He had considerable experience in inspecting watermelons prior to his examination of the loads delivered pursuant to the oral agreement between Petitioner and Respondent Young. In addition to work experience, Golightly had attended schools designed to promote his expertise in the examination of commodities, such as watermelons, to determine their marketability. Through his experience and training, Golightly is an expert in identifying the grade quality of watermelons and any associated problem reducing the quality of the commodity, watermelons. His background and training is identified in his deposition which was offered as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 and admitted into evidence. The grading of watermelons is pursuant to standards developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and is found in Exhibit 2 to the deposition. In inspecting a load of watermelons, a representative sample is examined of approximately 100 watermelons, going from the top of the load to the bottom. The Petitioner's watermelons, which were inspected by Golightly, were all inspected in Tennessee, as contrasted with the point of origin in Florida. As a consequence, the standards to be applied in that inspection were not as rigid. The loads in question were examined by Golightly after a request had been made by Young to conduct the inspection. That request was made at the time of receipt of the watermelons and any delay in inspection was occasioned by other duties to be fulfilled by Golightly or the fact of an intervening weekend between the time of receipt and the time of inspection. In view of these delays, as much as two to five days would pass between the time that the watermelons were loaded and the inspection was made. The results of the inspections may be found as part of the Respondents' Exhibit No. 1 as exhibits to the deposition and as part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1. In examining the watermelons, anthracnose, anthracnose rot, stem end rot, sunburn, immature picks and bruising were found. With the exception of the 45,280 pound load of July 2, 1982, and the 76,060 pound load of July 11, 1982, by the deposition and attachments, which are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and the Respondents' Exhibit No. 1, which contains copies of inspections made by Golightly, it has been shown that the watermelons in dispute were subject to a rejection as U.S. No. 1 watermelons. The basis of the rejection pertains to the observation made by the inspector in which he found those categories of deficiencies related in this paragraph. Those deficiencies are completely described in the deposition and in the inspection reports. Pursuant to custom or practice in the watermelon business, Respondent Young was entitled to sell the substandard watermelons, found by the federal inspector, at the best price possible and to pay the Petitioner a reduced amount for the product. In fact, Respondent Young mitigated the circumstances by selling those questioned watermelons that could be sold and has paid the Petitioner money realized from those sales. In addition, he has paid the Petitioner the full amount on the 45,250 pounds of watermelons of July 2, 1982. He has only paid the Respondent .015 cents f.o.b. on the 76,060 pounds of watermelons of July 11, 1982. The agreed upon price was .03 cents f.o.b. for those watermelons of July 11, 1982, and there was no proof in the course of the hearing to the effect that those watermelons were substandard. Based upon the facts as presented, Respondent still owes the Petitioner an additional $1,140.90 for the 76,060 pounds of watermelons which were delivered on July 11, 1982. The petitioner also claims $350 as a payment advanced to a driver involved with the July 3, 1982, load of 51,270 pounds. Petitioner claims Young is responsible for the reimbursement of the $350 which Petitioner advanced to this driver. The document within Respondents' Composite Exhibit No. 1, which is a copy of the invoice or statement for the load shows the payment of that advance. None of the Respondents' proof by testimony or documentation indicates any reimbursement of the $350 and the $350 claim is found to be established. Another related claim pertains to the July 13, 1982, load of 46,440 pounds in which the allegation is made by the Petitioner that $428.80 in freight costs are due from the Respondent Young. This is a balance remaining from the $928.80 freight reflected in the invoice or statement of account of July 13, 1982, which is found in Composite Exhibit No. 1 by the Petitioner. The complaint allegation shows that $500 of the total $928.80 has been paid leaving the subject $428.80 at issue. The Petitioner has successfully established entitlement to $428.80 related to freight on that load and this proof has been unrefuted by the Respondent. Finally, Petitioner claims an additional sum of $859.20 for freight on the July 18, 1983, 42,960 pound load. The statement of account or invoice, which is part of Composite Exhibit No. 1 by the Petitioner, shows a freight claim in that amount, and is sufficient proof to demonstrate entitlement to that amount. The proof offered by the Respondent Young fails to refute this claim. When added to remaining money owed for watermelon sales per se, Respondent owes the Petitioner a total amount of $2,778.90 for watermelons and related cost of freight and incidentals. American Insurance Company is surety on a $20,000.00 bond for the benefit of the Respondent Danny Lewis Young d/b/a Hugh Young Produce. This arrangement represents the available funds to pay Petitioner's claims.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner, Carl 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, 1988 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. 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 a truck 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, L.L. Hiers 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 shipped that day. 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 to the 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 as 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 L.L. Hiers 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 24 and 25, 1988, L.L. Hiers contacted Nichols and was informed that the price to be paid for melons shipped on June 24 and 25, 1988 was 4.5 cents per pound. This price was recorded in the field book with the net weight of each load of melons shipped on June 24 and 25, 1988. There were 2 loads of melons shipped on June 24, 1988 and 3 loads of melons shipped on June 25,1988 that are in dispute. They are as follows: load nos. 11252, and 11255 weighing 23,530 and 49,450 pounds respectively shipped on June 24, 1988, for which Nichols paid 2 cents per pound and; load nos. 11291, 11292 and 11294, weighing 43,000, 47,070 and 47,150 pounds respectively, shipped on June 25, 1988, for which Nichols paid 4 cents per pound. The total amount in dispute for these 6 loads is $2,510.60. Nichols contends that the 2 loads of melons shipped on June 24, 1988, were rejected at their destination and paid Petitioner 2 cents per pound. There was insufficient evidence to show that these melons were rejected at their destination or that the price received for the melons at their destination minus the 1 cent per pound commission was less than the agreed upon price of 4.5 cents per pound. On the 4 loads of melons shipped on June 25, 1988, load nos. 11291, 11292 and 11294, Nichols contends that the melons were below the quality for which he contracted. Nichols failed to present sufficient evidence to support his contention of low quality or that the price received at destination would have resulted in Petitioner receiving less than the agreed upon price of 4.5 cent per pound. There is no evidence that any of the loads in dispute were federally inspected at their origin or destination. Nichols has refused to pay Petitioner the amount in dispute on the 6 loads of melons shipped on June 24 and 25, 1988.
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 the Petitioner, Carl Hiers the sum of $2,510.60. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Jay Nichols, Inc., fails to timely pay Petitioner, Carl 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, Leon County, 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 Route 5, Box 339 Dunnellon, Florida 32630 Steve Nichols, Vice President Jay Nichols, Inc. Post Office Box 1705 Lakeland, Florida 33801 U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co. Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 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 and Consumer Services Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondents Smith are broker-shippers of watermelons and qualify as "dealers" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent South Carolina Insurance Company is surety for Respondents Smith. Petitioners Brewton and Respondents Smith have had a good business relationship overall, including the 1992 growing season during which several loads of high quality watermelons were sold by the Brewtons through the Smiths. Of the several loads of melons sold, only one load, the one invoiced on June 18, 1992, is at issue. Regardless of oral agreements with varying conditions for other loads, the parties agreed as of June 18, 1992 that the load of June 18, 1992, invoice 2088, (R-5), would be paid for by Respondents Smith advancing harvest costs and agreeing to pay Petitioners for the load, minus the costs of harvesting, after Respondents had received payment from the recipient. At the time of loading, everyone concerned felt the June 18, 1992 load might have some problems with it, but every attempt was made to load only quality product. Petitioners and Respondents each had input on which specific melons were loaded. At that time, Mr. Rick Smith o/b/o Respondents Smith advised Mr. Dewey Brewton, III that because the quality of the load was borderline and as a result of its borderline condition the whole load could be rejected at its ultimate destination, Respondents Smith wanted Petitioners Brewton to protect the Respondents Smith on the quality of the melons. He also specifically advised Dewey Brewton, III that the whole load could be rejected. The parties then entered into an agreement, partly oral and partly written. Rick Smith and Dewey Brewton, III understood their agreement to mean that Petitioners would absorb any loss as a result of the quality of the watermelons from that point forward, but that Respondents would not come back against Petitioners for the costs Respondents had advanced on Petitioners' behalf or for the cost of the freight. To signify this, the words "grower protects shipper on quality" was written on the invoice. On or about June 22, 1992, Rick Smith informed Dewey Brewton, III that the entire June 18, 1992 load had been rejected by the first receiver. At that time, Dewey Brewton, III accepted Rick Smith's representation and did not require further proof of rejection at the first point of delivery or request an independent inspection at the first point of delivery. He also acquiesced in Respondents shopping around for a second buyer who might take all or some of the load originally sent out on June 18, 1992, and did not request the return of Petitioners' watermelons. At that time, Rick Smith also told Dewey Brewton, III that the load might have to be held on the truck a day or two to ripen some of the watermelons for a second point of delivery. He again indicated that the whole load could be rejected again when the load was sent on to a second receiver. Dewey Brewton, III specifically agreed to let the melons ripen "a day or so," and did not request any change in the grower protection plan initially agreed to between the parties. Respondents Smith were eventually able to market the melons to a second delivery point (consignee) in Michigan. That receiver complained that the melons started breaking down and he had to dump 735 melons. Pursuant to standard custom of the trade, Respondents accepted payment of $1,944.00 for the melons, subtracted $1,831.98 they had laid out in freight costs and also subtracted the $675.18 they had advanced on behalf of Petitioners to the harvester. Thus, Respondents sustained a net loss of $563.16. Respondents absorbed the $563.16 loss and did not require any repayment of harvesting costs advanced or any freight charges from Petitioners. Dewey Brewton, III testified that he originally understood that "grower protection" meant that Petitioners "would stand behind their quality product until the ultimate point," but that he had interpreted a comment by Mr. Rick Smith on June 22, 1992 to the effect that "the grower (Petitioners) agreed to 'ride' the watermelons and the shipper (Respondent) agreed to 'ride' the freight" to mean that the growers (Petitioners) no longer had any duty to cover their own losses on the June 18, 1992 load of watermelons after the first rejection and up to final sale to the second buyer. In light of Mr. Brewton's failure to change the written language concerning protection on the invoice, his knowledge from the day of initial shipment that the June 18, 1992 load was of dubious quality, his acceptance that the first recipient had rejected the load, and his agreement that Respondents could have a further waiting/ripening/shopping around period before ultimate sale, coupled with his knowledge from the very beginning that the June 18, 1992 load could be utterly rejected at any point so as to render the endeavor a complete loss to the Petitioners, Mr. Brewton's assumption that on June 22, 1992, Respondents Smith were voluntarily waiving their written agreement that "grower protects shipper on quality" was not reasonable. On June 22, 1992, the load had already been rejected once. At that stage, the outcome of the proposed sale was considerably more precarious than when the crop was loaded on June 18, 1992. It is also found Mr. Brewton's assumption that the agreement had been modified was not knowingly or intentionally induced by the Respondents and that the assumption was not contemporaneously conveyed to Respondents Smith so that they could disabuse Mr. Brewton of his error. Upon the foregoing, it is further found that the written initial agreement that "grower protects shipper on quality" was not altered on June 22, 1992 but continued in force.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Jacquelyn J. Brewton 8876 NW 115th Avenue Ocala, FL 34482 Dewey Brewton III 8876 NW 115th Avenue Ocala, FL 34482 Richard L. Smith Midwest Marketing Company P. O. Box 193 Vincennes, IN 47591 South Carolina Insurance Company Legal Department 1501 Lade Street Columbia, SC 29201-0000
Findings Of Fact The case is being considered in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 604, Florida Statutes, which establishes the apparatus for settling disputes between Florida produce farmers and dealers who are involved with the farmers' products. Curtis Sanders, Wiley Garland and Joe Townsend, Florida farmers, contend by their complaint that two loads of watermelons grown and harvested in Florida, were sold directly to Great Lakes Produce of Florida, Inc. on the following dates, by the; following types, in the following weight amounts; at the following price per pound, and for the following total price per load: July 11, 1977, Crimson Sweet Watermelons, 42,990 lbs. at .02, totaling $859.80 July 12, 1977, Crimson Sweet Watermelons, 46,620 lbs. at .02, totaling $932.40 Total for all loads $1,792.20 An examination of the testimony offered in the course of the Petitioners' contention. The Repondent has not paid the $1,792.20 which it agreed to pay to the Petitioners and under the facts of the agreement it is obligated to pay the Petitioners.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent be required to pay the Petitioner $1,792.20 for the watermelons it purchased from the Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Earl Peterson, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Division of Marketing Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Curtis Sanders 630 Colonial Street Live Oak, Florida Wiley Garland 632 Colonial Street Live Oak, Florida Joe Townsend Post Office Box 1505 Live Oak, Florida Roger Serzen c/o Great Lakes Produce of Florida, Inc. Post Office Box 11931 Tampa, Florida 33680
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Am-Pro Distributors, Inc., d/b/a Am-Pro of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Am-Pro"), is a producer-broker of watermelons. Keith Warren has been the chief operating officer of Am-Pro at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Respondent, Brown's Produce, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Brown's"), is also a watermelon producer-broker. Brown's is located in Gilchrist County, Florida. Jerry Brown has been Brown's chief operating officer at all times relevant to this proceeding. In early 1994, James Dukes informed Mr. Warren that he was interested in purchasing watermelons. Mr. Warren was concerned about selling watermelons to Mr. Dukes because of doubts about whether Mr. Dukes would pay for the watermelons. When Mr. Warren told Mr. Dukes that he would not sell watermelons to him, Mr. Dukes mentioned Mr. Brown. Subsequent to Mr. Warren's conversation with Mr. Dukes, Mr. Warren received a telephone call from Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown informed Mr. Warren that he had been doing business with Mr. Dukes. Mr. Brown also told Mr. Warren that he did not have sufficient watermelons to supply Mr. Dukes. During the telephone conversation, Mr. Brown told Mr. Warren that, if he would send watermelons to Mr. Dukes as requested, he would pay for the watermelons. Mr. Warren told Mr. Brown that he would send the watermelons to Mr. Dukes, but that he would look to Mr. Brown for payment and not Mr. Dukes. Mr. Brown agreed. The agreement between Mr. Brown and Mr. Warren was not reduced to writing, consistent with industry practices. Nor did Mr. Brown or Mr. Warren agree on the amount of watermelons that were to be sent to Mr. Dukes. Watermelons were first shipped to Mr. Dukes on or about April 20, 1994. A total of nine shipments of watermelons were made to Mr. Dukes. The following shipments of watermelons were made to Mr. Dukes during April of 1994: DATE AMOUNT CHARGED April 20: $7,272.60 April 26: 7,139.20 April 27: 7,484.40 April 28: 5,909.50 April 28: 6,468.65 April 29: 6,551.20 On or about April 30, 1994, Mr. Warren decided not to send any further shipments of watermelons to Mr. Dukes because no payment had been made for the April shipments. Mr. Warren telephoned Mr. Brown about the lack of payment. Mr. Brown indicated that he would send some money and that he would get Mr. Dukes to send money directly to Mr. Warren that Mr. Dukes owed him. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Warren to continue sending watermelons to Mr. Dukes. Shortly after speaking to Mr. Brown about the nonpayment for watermelons sent to Mr. Dukes, Mr. Warren received three checks from Mr. Dukes. The checks were dated May 2, 1994. The total amount paid by Mr. Dukes was $10,000.00. These payments were credited against the indebtedness for watermelons shipped to Mr. Dukes. Mr. Warren informed Mr. Brown that he had received partial payment. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Warren to send more watermelons because he still did not have sufficient melons to supply Mr. Dukes. In reliance on Mr. Brown's statements, made additional shipments of watermelons to Mr. Dukes during May of 1994. The following shipments of watermelons were made to Mr. Dukes: DATE AMOUNT CHARGED May 2: 5,913.30 May 3: 4,620.60 May 3: 3,780.00 A total of $55,139.45 was invoiced for watermelons shipped to Mr. Dukes. The evidence failed to prove whether invoices for the individual shipments of watermelons to Mr. Dukes were provided to Mr. Brown. Invoices accepted into evidence are addressed to Brown's and J.B. Farms, Inc. Those invoices, however, were generated by an office of Am-Pro located in Plant City, Florida. The evidence failed to prove that the invoices were actually transmitted to Browns. The first written confirmation of the shipments was sent on or about May 21, 1994. Mr. Brown was, however, verbally informed of the shipments by Mr. Warren. Mr. Brown subsequently paid $20,000.00 to Am-Pro by check dated May 18, 1994. The payment was made by Mr. Brown through J.B. Farms, Inc. The payment was credited against the remaining indebtedness of $45,139.45, leaving a balance of $25,139.45. Mr. Warren made additional requests to Mr. Brown for payment of the remaining indebtedness after the $20,000.00 payment. Mr. Brown told Mr. Warren that additional payments would be made. During late May of 1994 or early June of 1994 Mr. Brown first informed Mr. Warren that he would not pay any further amount of the indebtedness for watermelons shipped to Mr. Dukes. On or about May 21, 1994, Johnna Thompson, an employee of Am-Pro, spoke with Mr. and Ms. Brown about the outstanding debt for watermelons shipped to Mr. Dukes. Ms. Thompson was asked to send a summary of the amounts invoiced for the watermelons. Ms. Thompson sent a summary of the watermelons shipped during April and May of 1994 by fax to Ms. Brown by Johnna Thompson. The check for $20,000.00 received by Am-Pro was sent in response to Ms. Thompson's request for payment. For some unexplained reason the check was dated May 18, 1994. The check, however, was not received until after May 21, 1994 and was paid May 27, 1994. At no time during Ms. Thompson's conversations with the Browns did either Mr. Brown or Ms. Brown indicate that only one shipment of watermelons to Mr. Dukes was to be paid for by Brown's. Nor did Mr. Brown, who had earlier told Mr. Warren that he would have Mr. Dukes send Mr. Warren money that Mr. Dukes owed Mr. Brown, tell Ms. Thompson that all or part of the $10,000.00 sent by Mr. Dukes was in payment for the one load of watermelons Mr. Brown allegedly agreed to pay for. Ms. Thompson also overheard one other conversation between Mr. Warren and Mr. Brown concerning the shipment of watermelons to Mr. Dukes. At no time during that conversation did Mr. Brown indicate that he was only paying for one shipment of watermelons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs enter a Final Order requiring that Brown's Produce, Inc., pay to Petitioner the sum of $25,139.45, within fifteen days of the Final Order and, absent such payment, requiring Lawyers Surety Corporation, after notice of nonpayment, to pay the same amount to Petitioner to the extent of the amount remaining under the bond. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, 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 21st day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-5999A The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 5. Accepted in 6-7. Accepted in 8. Accepted in 8-10. 5-6 Summary of some events and testimony at the final hearing. Accepted in 12. See 20. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 13 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 14. 14-15 Summary of some events and testimony at the final hearing. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 18. 18-19 Accepted in 19. 20 Accepted in 20. 21-22 Accepted in 9 and 15 23 Accepted in 14 and 18. 24-25 Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 21-22. Accepted in 21. Accepted in 23. 30-35 Not relevant. Summary of some events and testimony at the final hearing. 36-39 These proposed findings are a summary of events and testimony at the final hearing. The statement of Mr. Dukes was given no weight in this Recommended Order. 40-44 Summary of some events and testimony at the final hearing. Accepted in 8-9. Summary of some events and testimony at the final hearing. Cumulative. Accepted in 16. Summary of some events and testimony at the final hearing. Hereby accepted Browns' Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1-2. Accepted in 3-4. Hereby accepted. Statement of the issue. Accepted in 5. Accepted in 6-7. Accepted in 8-9. 8-9 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 10. Hereby accepted. See 17 and 21. Accepted in 21. Accepted in 17 and 21. 15-16 Accepted in 17. 17-19 Hereby accepted. 20-21, 24-25 and 33-34 These proposed findings of fact are generally correct. The "discrepancies" in dates were not sufficient to raise doubt as to the pertinent facts in this case. The discrepancies relate to when the invoices were run. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 13. Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not, however, supported by the weight of the evidence. 26-27 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 28-29 Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. 35 See 8 36-38 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Buzbee, Esquire Post Office Drawer HHH Plant City, Florida 33564-9053 Theodore M. Burt, Esquire Post Office Box 308 Trenton, Florida 32693 Lawyers Surety Corporation 1025 South Semoran, Suite 1085 Winter Park, Florida 32792 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners (complainants) are entitled to recover $10,258.98, or any part thereof against Respondent dealer and his surety company.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are growers of watermelons and qualify as "producers" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondent Eddie D. Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company is surety for Respondent Griffin d/b/a Quality Brokerage. This cause is governed by the claims made in the amended complaint. (Exhibit P-13) That amended complaint sets out the parameters of the claimed amounts as follows: AGREED PRICE PAID PRICE DIFFERENCE CLAIMED 6-13-92 Inv.#573 45,429 lbs. Jub. melons @ .04/lb.$1,816.80 (paid on 41,720 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.08 1,107.72 950.46 157.26 6-14-92 Inv.#586 48,060 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,403.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.61 1,693.39 1,202.79 490.60 6-14-92 Inv.#587 50,610 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,530.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 10.12 1,820.38 1,304.28 516.10 6-15-92 Inv.#592 44,800 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,240.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.96 1,531.04 1,153.04 378.00 6-15-92 Inv.#593 46,340 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,317.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.27 1,607.73 1,144.33 463.40 6-16-92 Inv.#598 47,170 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,358.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.43 1,649.07 1,177.37 471.70 6-16-92 Inv.#607 48,320 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,416.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.66 1,706.34 1,223.14 483.20 6-17-92 Inv.#628 1/ 40,890 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,044.50 (no inv.# provided producer) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.18 1,336.32 .00 1,336.32 6-17-92 Inv.#626 36,690 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 1,834.50 (paid on 27,890 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 7.34 1,127.16 688.92 438.24 6-17-92 Inv.#627 37,300 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 1,865.00 (paid on 30,500 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 7.46 1,157.54 818.90 338.64 6-17-92 Inv.#642 43,350 lbs. Job. melons @ .05/lb. 2,167.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.67 1,458.83 1,025.33 433.50 6-18-92 Inv.#643 44,150 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,207.50 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.83 1,498.67 1,057.17 441.50 6-18-92 Inv.#644 45,060 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,253.00 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.01 1,543.99 .00 1,543.99 6-18-92 Inv.#646 43,180 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,159.00 (paid on 38,380 lbs.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.64 1,450.36 1,211.32 239.04 6-18-92 Inv.645 47,070 lbs. Jub. melons @ .05/lb. 2,353.50 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 9.41 1,644.09 .00 1,644.09 6-19-92 Inv.#663 43,520 lbs. Crim. melons @ .05/lb. 2,176.00 (paid @ .04/lb.) Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.70 1,467.30 1,032.10 435.20 6-19-92 Inv.#685 44,820 Crim. melons lbs. @ .05/lb. 2,241.00 Adv. -700.00 NWPB - 8.96 1,532.04 1,083.84 448.20 TOTAL DUE $10,258.98 The amended complaint admits that Respondent's deductions for advances and NWPB were appropriate on each load/invoice, and these are not in contention. The amended complaint admits that Respondent has already made the payments to Petitioners, which are indicated. It is only the claimed shortfall on each load that is at issue. At formal hearing, Petitioners discussed a load they claimed they had delivered to Respondent on 6-20-92. They had neither receipts, weight tickets, nor settlement sheets, (invoices) nor payment from Respondent on this load. This "lost load," as the parties described it, is not named in the amended complaint. Therefore, no findings of fact can be made thereon, due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 appears to apply to loads 560, 561, 562, and 563, all loads occurring on 6-11-92. That date and those load numbers also are not listed in the amended complaint. Accordingly, no findings of fact will be made with regard to loads 560, 561, 562 or 563, due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners delineated two theories of recovery as to the seventeen claims actually named in the amended complaint. Petitioners claimed the right to recover from Respondents due to Respondent dealer's failure to pay for all or some of the poundage delivered by Petitioners to Respondent dealer on the following loads: 6-13-92 #573, 6-17-92 #628, 6-17-92 #626, 6-17-92 #627, 6-18-92 #644, 6-18-92 #646, 6-18-92 #645, 6- 19-92 #685. Petitioners claim the right to recover from Respondents due to Respondent dealer's failure to pay per pound at the rate of one cent below the "wire price" per pound on the following loads: 6-14-92 #586, 6-14-92 #587, 6- 15-92 #592, 6-15-92 #593, 6-16-92 #598, 6-16-92 #607, 6-17-92 #642, 6-18-92 #643, and 6-19-92 #663. For 6-15-92 18-24 lb. average 4.50 - 5.00 cents, few 6.00 26-32 lb. average 4.50 - 5.00 cents, few 6.00 For 6-16-92 18-24 lb. average 5.00 - 6.00 cents 26-32 lb. average 5.00 - 6.00 cents For 6-17-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 cents, few higher and lower 26-32 lb. average 6.00 cents, few higher and lower For 6-18-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, "Wire prices" are printed in "spread" form. Evidence was presented (Composite Exhibit P-14), and the parties are agreed, that the following were the "wire prices" at certain times material. Otherwise, there is no evidence in this record concerning amounts or dates of "wire prices." mostly 6.00, few higher 26-32 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, mostly 6.00, few higher and lower For 6-19-92 18-24 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents, mostly 6.00, few higher 26-32 lb. average 6.00 - 6.50 cents mostly 6.00, few higher and lower Since no "wire prices" were proven up for the days involved in loads 586, and 587, Petitioners are not entitled to recover on their theory of entitlement for those loads. Upon the allegations of the amended complaint and the "wire prices" proven, it appears that Petitioners have already received payment from Respondent dealer at one cent (or better) below the proven low-end "wire price" on loads 592, 593, 598, and 607. Therefore, Petitioners are not entitled to recover on their theory of entitlement for those loads. Petitioners (grower-producers) believed that they had negotiated an oral contract with Respondent dealer to the effect that the dealer would pay Petitioners at the rate of one cent below the "wire price" per pound on those days that Respondent took delivery from them of their watermelons. Respondent testified contrariwise that although such an arrangement was discussed, the parties' final oral agreement was concluded in terms of an excellent quality of every melon, and after negotiations were completed, the dealer understood that the price he was to pay the producers was just the same price per pound he paid all his other producers on any given day. In determining the daily uniform price per pound, Respondent admitted that he used the "wire price" as a guideline, but never explained exactly how the "wire price" constituted a guideline. The Petitioners and Respondent dealer had dealt with one another over a period of years. In past years they had discussed what was to occur if any loads were refused, in whole or in part, by retail buyers at their ultimate destinations. Over the years, the parties had agreed that for loads involving a "small deduct," that is, a small amount of refused melons, Respondent had unilateral authority to informally agree to dump the bad melons or take whatever he could get for the load and pass on the monetary loss to Petitioners. Petitioners conceded that the discretion to take or not take such losses always had been entirely that of Respondent during the parties' several years of past dealing, and that before 1992, whenever an ultimate recipient had refused melons, the "deduct" had been "worked out" this way with no prior notice to Petitioners. In short, by Petitioners' own evidence, it appears that up until the loads at issue in 1992, Petitioners had always simply accepted the Respondent's calculations concerning refusals for quality without requiring proof by way of a federal inspection. Mr. Randal Roberts Sr. testified that in his opinion, any "deduct" over 300 pounds was not "small." However, no evidence defining an industry standard for the relative terms of "small deducts" or "large deducts" was introduced. In light of the parties' standard arrangement over the whole course of their business dealings, it is deemed that Respondent continued to be within his rights in 1992 to unilaterally decide which melons to pay Petitioners for and which melons not to pay Petitioners for where quality became an issue between himself and the ultimate recipients. Petitioners estimated that on a scale of one to ten, the melons they had delivered to Respondent dealer in 1992 were "about a seven" when they delivered them to him, even though Respondent's agents culled out the really bad melons. It may be inferred therefrom that the loads were no better and were probably in worse condition when they reached their ultimate destinations. Respondent testified that he had dumped all or part of the remaining loads in question or reduced the price per pound from that of the "wire price" due to the poor quality of the melons based on complaints or refusals by the recipients when the melons reached their ultimate destinations. These are loads 573, 628, 626, 627, 644, 646, 645, 685, 642, 643, and 663. Although Petitioners adamantly denied that they had ever agreed to rely on federal inspections to determine which melons were bad and which were good, Respondent had gotten federal inspection sheets (R-2) to support his decision to dump all or part of loads 628, 643, 645, 663, and 685. Respondent dealer introduced his business journal (R-3) to show that load 643 was "bad" and load 644 was "dumped" due to poor quality. Respondent dealer introduced his contemporaneous business journal (R- 3) to show that except for loads 607, 643, 644, 663, and 685 he had paid as much to Petitioners per pound as to anyone else on the respective days he had taken delivery. On those loads he had paid Petitioners less than some other producers whom he dealt with on those days, but contended that he had reduced the price per pound paid to Petitioners on those days on the basis of poor quality, too. Nonetheless, 607 was paid at least at one cent below the "wire price" (See Finding of Fact 14), 643 was shown bad by inspection, 644 was dumped in its entirety per the dealer's journal, and 663 and 685 were shown bad by inspection. Upon the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent was within the parameters of his standard dealings with Petitioners where he reduced the price per pound of loads 643 and 663 on the basis of quality, just as he was within his clear unilateral authority and discretion to dump or discard whole melons from loads 628, 644, 645, and 685. After accounting for the foregoing loads, that leaves only loads 573, 626, 627, and 646 left in issue as to poundage and only load 642, (for which Respondent paid 4 cents per pound instead of one cent below the "spread" of the "wire price" for that day) at issue as to price per pound. As to each of these loads, Respondent produced business records wherein he had made contemporaneous notations concerning the quality complaints and/or number of melons rejected by the ultimate recipients. (R-2) Respondent did not pay Petitioners anything on load 645 because of freight deductions and Respondent also made freight deductions on some other invoices. There is no evidence in this record regarding how the parties had negotiated who would bear the ultimate cost of the freight. However, the Petitioners have not proven any entitlement to recover these charges which Respondent advanced and paid. Likewise, Petitioners also have not set out any trail by which the undersigned can trace any mathematical errors on any loads/settlement sheets to the Respondent dealer over Petitioners. Under the parties' standard mode of doing business, Respondent had clear unilateral authority and discretion to dump or discard whole melons for quality and pay Petitioners nothing for the whole melons dumped or discarded in loads 573, 626, 627, and 646. Upon the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent was also within the parameters of his standard dealings with Petitioners in not paying full negotiated price per pound on load 642 where some lesser price per pound could be negotiated with the ultimate recipient as to quality.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order dismissing all named claims against Respondents. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearings the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1983). At all times pertinent to this proceedings Respondent Pagano was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1); Florida Statutes (1983), issued license no. 1624 by the Departments and bonded by Sentry Indemnity Company (Sentry) in the sum of $29,000.00 - Bond No. 88-04453-01. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Sentry was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes (1983). Petitioner sold several loads of watermelons to Respondent Pagano during the 1985 watermelon season but only three (3) loads are in disputed and they are: (a) 1 load of Crimson Sweet Watermelons loaded from Barron Farm No. 3 on April 19, 1985, weighing 46,180 pounds and billed on Petitioner's invoice, No. 24-2264 at $0.274 per pound for a total invoice price of $12,653.32; (b) 1 load of Crimson Sweet Watermelons loaded from Barron Farm No. 3 on April 19, 1985, weighing 44,920 pounds and billed on Petitioner's invoice, No. 24-2265 at $0.274 per pound for a total invoice price of $12,308.08; and (c) 1 load of Grey Watermelons loaded from Barron Farms No. 2 on April 20, 1985, weighing 41,620 pounds and billed on Petitioner's invoice No. 24-2298 at $0.274 per pound for a total invoice price of $11,403.88. Each truck was weighed before and after loading on the date loaded to determine the net weight of watermelons. There was no evidence presented that this net weight was incorrect. Although the price included the cost of delivery to Respondent Pagano at 62 Brooklyn Terminal Market, Brooklyn, New York, the more credible evidence shows that the agreement between Petitioner and Respondent Pagano was that title and risk of loss passed to Respondent Pagano on shipments with all remedies and rights for Petitioner's breach reserved to Respondent Pagano. When each of the three (3) loads arrived at their destinations the total pounds to be paid for, either at the agreed upon price or at a reduced price; was adjusted downward. On each of the loads there were some watermelons paid for at a reduced price because of alleged bruising which together with the reduction in total pounds and a deduction for "protect advance", caused a reduction in the total invoice price as follows: INVOICE NO. ORIGINAL PRICE ADJUSTED PRICE DIFFERENCE 24-2264 $12,653.32 $11,397.39 $1,255.93 24-2265 12,308.08 8,667.84 3,640.24 24-2298 11,403.88 10,478.50 925.38 TOTAL: 36,365.28 30,543.73 5,821.55 There was no federal or state inspection performed at the time the watermelons were loaded or after arrival at their destination. The more credible evidence shows that petitioner was not advised of the condition of the watermelons before the adjustment was made to allow petitioner an opportunity to ask for an inspection or give any other instruction with regards to the watermelons. Petitioner sold and shipped to different buyers, five (5) loads of Crimson Sweet Watermelons and two (2) loads of mixed watermelons from Barron Farms Nos. 2 and 3 on April 19, 1985 which were received without any incident of loss due to bruising or otherwise. Petitioner sold and shipped to different buyers five (5) loads of Grey watermelons from Barron Farm No. 2 and three (3) loads of Crimson Sweet Watermelons from Barron Farms Nos. 2 and 3 on April 20, 1985 which were received without any incident of loss due to bruising or otherwise. Petitioner made adjustments in the amount of freight owed on all three (3) loads due to differences in weight at point of shipment and weight at destination and for the weight of watermelons rejected. On invoice No. 24- 2265 the freight was reduced from $1,976.48 to $1,651.20 which included a reduction for 5,120 pounds of rejected watermelons at $4.40 per hundred weight plus $100.00 protect advanced on invoice No. 24-2298 the freight was reduced from $1,831.28 to $1,704.00 which includes a reduction for 620 pounds of watermelons due to difference in weight at point of shipping and weight at destinations plus $100.00 protect advanced and on invoice No. 24-2264 the freight was reduced from $2,031.92 to $1,847.88 which includes a reduction for 1910 pounds of watermelons rejected or difference in shipping and receiving weights plus $100.00 protect advance. The total difference in freight on all three loads is $636.60. On May 12 and 29, 1985, Respondent Pagano paid Petitioner the total sum of $30,543.73 leaving a balance owed on the three (3) loads of $5;82l.55 which Respondent Pagano has refused to pay.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Pagano be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $5,821.55 with the Petitioner being held responsible for any freight due as a result of this recommendation. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Pagano fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then Respondent Sentry be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1985. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 24th day of February, COPIES FURNISHED: Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 F. J. Manuel, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 3626 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert Hanshaw and Bruce Hanshaw Post Office Box 996 LaBelle, Florida 33935 Ron Weaver, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight, Chief License and Bond Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tony Pagano & Sons, Inc. 62 Brooklyn Terminal Market Brooklyn, New York 11236
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to all or part of $12,732.61 he claims as a result of eight loads of watermelons brokered by Respondent Sunny Fresh Citrus Export & Sales Company between June 17, 1996 and June 21, 1996?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a grower of watermelons and qualifies as a "producer" under Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Respondent Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh Citrus Export & Sales Company is a broker-shipper of watermelons and qualifies as a "dealer" under Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida is surety for Respondent Sunny Fresh. Petitioner's father had long done business with Kelly Marinaro's father, Frank Marinaro, before each father's retirement. Upon what basis the fathers traded is not clear on the record. Petitioner approached Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh on three occasions with written proposals, two of which involved some front money being put up by Kelly Marinaro to help Petitioner grow and sell watermelons. One proposal suggested a standard broker's fee to be taken off loads. In each instance, Kelly Marinaro rejected the proposals, explaining that he was not a grower or a buyer but only "brokered" melons other people grew. On or about June 15, 1996, Petitioner telephoned and requested that Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh assist him in the sale of watermelons he had already grown on a 40 acre field near Wildwood, Florida. Earlier in the 1996 watermelon season, Carr Hussey had taken two loads of melons from Petitioner's field. Hussey had advanced Petitioner $3,000 for harvesting of the melons. Although Petitioner claimed that Mr. Hussey bought his melons in the field, he also conceded that the melons he sold Mr. Hussey did not net that amount when sold to the ultimate purchaser, and therefore, neither Mr. Hussey nor Petitioner made any profit on those two loads. Mr. Hussey did not require reimbursement of the $3,000 he had advanced and proposed that Petitioner and he "work it out" the following season. However, Mr. Hussey took no more loads of Petitioner's melons and "went off to Georgia." This left Petitioner in need of some immediate help in selling his remaining melons. In the June 15, 1996 phone call, Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh agreed to "broker" Petitioner's remaining watermelons to ultimate buyers in the north and northeast United States whom Marinaro lined up by telephone before shipping the melons. That is, he agreed to use his best efforts to sell the watermelons on Petitioner's behalf to ultimate consumers, charging Petitioner one cent per pound or $1.00 per hundred weight sales charge. The parties' arrangement depended upon the sale of the watermelons and the price actually paid at the ultimate destination, rather than the price the watermelons ideally could be sold for on the day they left Petitioner's field. The parties' agreement by telephone was not reduced to writing, but Findings of Fact 8 and 9 are made contrary to Petitioner's assertion that "they (Sunny Fresh) inspected; they bought the melons as is" for the following reasons. Kelly Marinaro had previously rejected any different risk for his company than selling the melons at the ultimate destination. He produced a written notation he had made contemporaneously with his telephone negotiation with Petitioner. Despite Petitioner's vague testimony to the contrary, it appears that Petitioner had had arrangements with other brokers in the past whereby he knew no profit would be made if the melons did not arrive in good condition, and he should have been aware that the actual sale price received at the point of delivery was the standard of doing business. Petitioner did not dispute that the sales charge was to be deducted by Kelly Marinaro from the ultimate price obtained. This is consistent with a dealer selling on behalf of a grower at the ultimate destination. Petitioner relied on prices given in the standard "Watermelon Reports" as F.O.B. (F.O.B. usually signifies delivery at a certain price at the seller's expense to some location.) I also find that the parties agreed to the price of the melons being based upon the amount they netted at the melons' ultimate destination for the reasons set out in Findings of Fact 13 and 16-21. Frank Marinaro, the father of Kelly Marinaro, is retired and regularly resides outside the State of Florida. He is unable to drive himself due to age and infirmity. He has a hired driver named James Hensley. The senior Mr. Marinaro is not a principal or employee of Sunny Fresh, but he likes to visit his son and his old cronies in Florida's watermelon belt during the growing season, for old times' sake. He was visiting his son in June, 1996. Kelly Marinaro arranged for Frank Marinaro to be driven by Mr. Hensley to Wildwood. Kelly Marinaro then transferred $6,300 of Sunny Fresh's money to a Wildwood bank where it was withdrawn in cash by Frank Marinaro. Frank Marinaro, driven by Mr. Hensley, then delivered the cash in three incremental payments authorized by Kelly Marinaro to Petitioner to pre-pay Petitioner's harvesting costs. The senior Mr. Marinaro also helped with the incidental duties of meeting trucks at the Wildwood weighing station or local truck stops and directing them to Petitioner's farm. He was not paid by Sunny Fresh or by Petitioner for these services. Petitioner testified that Frank Marinaro was present in his field for the loading of several truckloads of melons on different days, that he cut open some melons in the field and pronounced them "good" after sampling them, and that Frank Marinaro asked Petitioner to pay Mr. Hensley $50.00 for helping around the field and with physically loading some melons while they were there. This testimony is not evidence of Frank Marinaro's "apparent agency" to engage in the more complicated and technical process of "grading" watermelons on behalf of Sunny Fresh. These activities of Frank Marinaro did not alter Petitioner's agreement with Kelly Marinaro on behalf of Sunny Fresh so that Frank Marinaro's and James Hensley's actions constituted a direct sale to Sunny Fresh of all the melons loaded at Petitioner's farm (the point of embarkation) because both Petitioner and Kelly Marinaro clearly testified that the $6,300 cash harvesting costs constituted advances against receipts of the sale of watermelons when sold by Sunny Fresh at the ultimate destination. Further, the request that Petitioner pay Mr. Hensley for helping load the watermelons is in the nature of Petitioner paying a casual laborer for harvesting rather than it is evidence that any Sunny Fresh authority resided in Mr. Hensley. Between June 17, 1996 and June 21, 1996, Petitioner loaded eight truckloads of watermelons onto trucks for sale to various customers in the north and northeast United States. Of the eight truckloads loaded, the breakdown of actual costs and expenses worked out as follows: ACCOUNTING OF R. BASS LOADS Sunny Fresh #93775 Sold to: Frankie Boy Produce Frankie Boys #96095 New York, NY Weight shipped: 41,250 Unloaded weight: 40,400 Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 5 - ½ cents/lb Net return $1,212.00 Sales charge: (404.00) Watermelon promotion board tax: (8.08) Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 2 cents/lb $ 799.92 Sunny Fresh #93791 Sold to: Fruitco Corp. Fruitco #1880 Bronx, NY Weight shipped: 40.800 Unloaded weight: 39,180 Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 5 - ½ cents/lb Net return $ 974.71 Sales charge: (391.81) Watermelon promotion board tax: (7.84) Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 2.49 cents/lb $ 575.06 Sunny Fresh #81312 Crosset Co. #67012 Sold to: Crosset Co. Cincinnati, OH Weight shipped: 45,860 Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to 41,762 grower for good watermelon: 5 cents/lb Gross return $4,134.42 Shipping charges (freight): (1,712.63) Net return: 2,421.79 Sales charge: (438.48) Watermelon promotion board tax: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 4.75 cents/lb (8.35) $1,974.96 Sunny Fresh #93804 Sold to: Tom Lange Co. Lange #3344 St. Louis, MO Weight shipped: 44,550 Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 39,760 5 cents/lb Gross return $2,584.40 Shipping charges (freight): (1,455.96) Net return: 1,128.44 Sales charge: (445.50) Watermelon promotion board tax: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 1.72 cents/lb (7.95) $ 674.99 Sunny Fresh #93802 M.A. Fruit #N/G Sold to: M.A. Fruit Trading Corp New York, NY Weight shipped: 40,130 Unloaded weight: 36,720 Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 5 cents/lb Gross return $3,797.40 Shipping charges (freight): (1,758.55) Net return: 2,038.85 Sales charge: (401.30) Watermelon promotion board tax: (7.34) Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 4.46 cents/lb $1,630.21 Sunny Fresh #93817 Sold to: C. H. Robinson Company C.H. Robinson #379035 Cleveland, OH Weight shipped: 43,300 Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to 42,147 grower for good watermelon: 5 cents/lb Gross return $4,440.21 Shipping charges (freight): (1,930.27) Net return: 2,509.94 Sales charge: (411.02) Watermelon promotion board tax: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 5 cents/lb (8.43) $2,090.49 Sunny Fresh #93819 Sold to: Isenberg #N/G Joseph Isenberg, Inc. Buffalo, NY Weight shipped: Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 45,100 5 cents/lb Gross return $ 500.00 Shipping charges (freight): (1,877.98) Net return: (1,377.98) Sales charge: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 4.06 cents/lb (451.00) $(1,828.98) Sunny Fresh #81334 Sold to: Palazzola . Palazzola #N/G Memphis, TN Weight shipped: 47,700 Unloaded weight: Initial price at shipment to grower for good watermelon: 5 cents/lb Gross return $ 0.00 Shipping charges (freight): (1,553.30) Net return: (1,553.30) Inspection: (65.00) Bins: (30.00) Sales charge: Return to R. Bass due to bad melons: 4.46 cents/lb (477.00) $(2,125.90) Kelly Marinaro testified credibly that the resultant low prices paid by the ultimate purchasers was the result of the poor quality of Petitioner's melons upon their arrival at their ultimate destination. Exhibits admitted in evidence without objection verified the poor condition of five of the loads. In those instances in which there were United States Department of Agriculture Inspection Reports, I accept those reports as clearly dispositive of the issue of the melons' poor condition upon arrival. Petitioner's more vague testimony that he doubted any load could ever pass such an inspection as "A-1," does not refute them. Kelly Marinaro testified credibly and without contradiction that each time he was informed by a potential buyer that a load of melons was in poor condition upon arrival at their destination, he faxed, mailed, or telephoned Petitioner with the "trouble report" information as soon as feasible and tried to involve him in the decision as to what should be done. This is consistent with a sale at the ultimate destination. Kelly Marinaro further testified credibly and without contradiction that for two loads he recommended to Petitioner that they not obtain a federal inspection because it was not cost efficient. He made this recommendation for one of these two loads because it reached its destination on a Friday and the fruit would have to stand and deteriorate further in quality and price over the weekend if they waited on an inspection. Petitioner agreed to waive at least one inspection. Petitioner and Kelly Marinaro did not agree as to the number of times they spoke on the phone about "trouble reports", but Petitioner acknowledged at least four such phone conversations. Petitioner and Kelly Marinaro did agree that in each phone call, Petitioner told Kelly Marinaro to "do the best you can," and stated he did not want to pay any freight. This type of conversation is not indicative of a relationship in which the melons have been purchased outright at the site of embarkation, Petitioner's field. I have considered the testimony of Petitioner and of Kelly Marinaro, respectively, on the issue of whether or not Petitioner was required to pay the freight on the watermelons from their first oral contract by telephone call on June 15, 1996. Without attributing any ill-motive to either party- witness, I find they did not initially have a meeting of the minds as to how the cost of freight was to be handled, and that Petitioner assumed at some point he would not have to pay freight. However, it is clear from the evidence as a whole that Kelly Marinaro did everything possible to avoid freight charges to Petitioner and would not have meticulously informed and received oral waivers of inspections from Petitioner if there had been any clear agreement either that Sunny Fresh was purchasing the watermelons "as is" in Petitioner's field or that Sunny Fresh Produce was paying all the freight. Indeed, Petitioner was not charged for freight when Kelly Marinaro d/b/a Sunny Fresh provided the trucks. It is also clear from the evidence as a whole that Petitioner was informed on or about the date that each load arrived at its ultimate destination that he was going to be charged for at least some freight charges out of the ultimate price received for the melons. Bill Ward has acted as a broker of watermelons for many years. I accept his testimony that there can be varying grades of watermelon within one field or one harvest. The several "Watermelon Reports" admitted without objection show that the demand for Florida watermelons was light or fairly light in June 1996, that the price was down or to be established, and that all quotations were for stock of generally good quality and condition. There had been a lot of rain in Florida during the 1996 watermelon season and rain unfavorably affects the quality of melons. Melons from further north where there had been less rain were able to be shipped to northern and northeastern buyers in less time than were Florida melons. Northern and northeastern buyers did not have to select from inferior melons that year. Petitioner's testimony and supporting documentation that he sold to other purchasers two truckloads of good quality, top price melons from the same field between June 17 and June 21, 1996 does not overcome all the evidence that the majority of melons he sold through Sunny Fresh were of the poor quality reported by the ultimate buyers and federal inspectors or that the melons sold to Sunny Fresh deteriorated due to slow transport.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint.RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Bass 32510 Sumter Line Road Leesburg, FL 34748 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 Mr. Robert Waldman American Bankers Insurance Company Claims Management Services 11222 Quail Roost Drive Miami, FL 33157-6596 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1983) . At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Swaiff was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1); Florida Statutes (1983), issued license No. 1630 by the Department, and bonded by Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast (Hartford) in the sum of $25,000.00 Bond No. RN 4528454. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Hartford was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was timely filed in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes (1983). The record is clear that Respondent Swain agreed to purchase a load of watermelons from Petitioner at an agreed upon price of $0.03 per pound, with payment "due on date of sale", to be loaded on a truck furnished by Respondent Swain through Elton Stone, Inc., a truck broker. Petitioner agreed to harvest and load the truck with a "good quality" or U.S. No. 1 grade watermelons subject to rejection on arrival at their destination if the watermelons were nonconforming for reasons attributable to the Petitioner. No evidence was presented with regard as to what Respondent Swain or Petitioner understood watermelons of "good quality" to mean and, likewise, no evidence was presented to show what standards a load of watermelons had to meet in order to be graded U.S. No. 1. Although Respondent Swain contends that he acted only as a sales agent, that is, he arranged the sale of the watermelons and made arrangements for a truck to deliver the watermelons; the evidence shows that the agreement between Petitioner and Respondent Swain was that title and risk of loss passed to Respondent Swain on shipment, with all remedies and rights for Petitioner's breach reserved to Respondent Swain. Petitioner sold other loads of watermelons to Respondent Swain during the 1985 watermelon season but only one (1) load is in dispute which is a load of watermelons weighing 4,8760 pounds at $0.03 per pound for a total amount of $1;462.80 which Respondent Swain has refused to pay. From June 19, 1985 through June 30, 1985, Petitioner harvested and sold nine t9) other loads of watermelons from the same field as the watermelons in dispute were harvested without any loss due to anthractnose rot or otherwise on arrival at their destination. The watermelons in dispute were loaded June 26, 1985 on a trailer with license number KY-T37-131 and billed to Charley Brothers Company; New Stanton; Pennsylvania by Respondent Swain's on his Invoice Number 061843 and delivered on June 28, 1985. Charley Brothers Company rejected the load and Respondent Swain called for an inspection which showed some anthractnose rot in the early stages in the front ten (10) feet of trailer with the remaining load showing no decay. The percentage of rot or decay is not-evident from the report since it is somewhat illegible and the inspector who prepared the report did not testify. 10 The evidence was insufficient to prove whether the trailer was vented or not vented. The testimony of those persons present during the loading of the watermelons in dispute was credible and shows that the watermelons were in good condition on June 26; 1985 when they were loaded and that if anthractnose rot was present on the watermelons it was not visible at the time of loading. Neither Respondent Swain nor his representative were present during the harvesting and loading of the watermelons. The evidence shows that Respondent Swain made numerous telephone calls in regard to this load of watermelons, some of those calls to Petitioner, but the evidence is insufficient to prove the content of those telephone conversations with Petitioner. The load was put on consignment to Felix and Sons Wholesale by Respondent Swain and he received a check in the sum of $500.00 as payment for the load of watermelons. Respondent Swain paid Elton Stone, Inc. $1,820.94 for freight resulting in a loss of $1,320.94 on the load of watermelons.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein; it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Swain be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $t,494.30. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Swain fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then Respondent Hartford be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21; Florida Statutes (1983) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1983). Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee; Leon County; Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, F1orida 32301 L. J. Crawford Route 3, Box 269 Lake Butler, Florida 32059 Ron Weaver, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight; Chief License and Bond Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Dale M. Swain d/b/a Palm Fruit Shop 313 West Seminole Avenue Bushnell, Florida 33513
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rushton is a grower of watermelons and qualifies as a "producer" under Section 604.15(5) F.S. Respondents Smith are broker-shippers of watermelons and qualify as dealers" under Section 604.15(1) F.S. Respondent South Carolina Insurance Company is surety for Respondents Smith. The amount and period of the bond have not been established. Petitioner's complaint sets out the amounts owed as follows: DATE OF SALE QUANTITY, AND PRICE PRODUCTS PER UNIT GRADE 6/7/92 Inv.#2051 43,200 lbs. AMOUNT Crimson Sweet Melons @.04 lb. $1,728.00 NWPB - 8.64 Adv. - 700.00 $1,019.36 6/10/92 Inv.#2053 43,900 lbs. Crimson Sweet Melons @3.5 lb. $1,536.50 NWPB - 8.78 Adv. - 700.00 $ 827.72 6/10/92 Inv.#2056 46,180 lbs. Crimson Sweet Melons @3.5 lb. $1,616.30 NWPB - 9.24 Adv. - 700.00 Less Payment of - 933.18 $ 907.06 $2,754.14 TOTAL $1,820.96 Regardless of the form of the complaint, Petitioner acknowledged at formal hearing that his claim relates only to Load 2051, that he did not dispute the deductions made by Respondents for NwPB or the advances paid him by the Dealer. Petitioner's complaint lumped the three loads together only because Respondent chose to cut a single check for all three loads and pay his accounts that way nearly three months after Load 2051 was shipped. With regard to Load 2051, it is not disputed that 43,200 pounds of watermelons were loaded by Dealers in Petitioner's field on June 7, 1992. The 1992 season was Petitioner's initial endeavor at growing watermelons. He was "in a bind" from the beginning of the growing season. Petitioner had originally intended to sell his watermelons to another buyer- dealer, but that person failed to send trucks to Petitioner's field. Petitioner was approached by Bobby Patton who put him in contact with Respondent Jim Smith on Saturday, June 6, 1992. Petitioner testified that Bobby Patton cut into and inspected sample melons and accepted most of his field of melons on Friday, June 5, 1992. After speaking with Petitioner by telephone on Saturday, June 6, 1992, Jim Smith went to Petitioner's field on Sunday, June 7, 1992. Petitioner and Respondents had no prior business dealings before their June 6 phone call. Jim Smith did not arrive at Petitioner's field on June 7, 1992 until the open-topped truck he had sent was half-loaded with Petitioner's melons. At that time, Smith and his employee, Dale Hires, inspected the melons on the truck and found some hollow hearts. At that time, Mr. Smith thought that the melons on the truck had been picked since Friday, but the undersigned accepts Petitioner's testimony and finds as fact that all the melons loaded into Load 2051 had been picked only since Saturday. Petitioner admitted that the melons were, "a little overripe and should have been loaded on Thursday or Friday and moved." Petitioner admitted that he and Smith then discussed that the melons were a little overripe and that they were "close" and had to be moved. Respondent Jim Smith told Petitioner there was a "potential problem," and he would let him know if a problem actually developed. Smith also said that they would try to work together and move the melons and try not to get Respondents "hurt." However, Petitioner did not specifically agree to "help" Respondent on melon loss. Petitioner later thought he was "helping" by putting a trucker up overnight in a motel at Petitioner's own expense. Smith used the phrases, "help each other" "help us" and "not hurt" to mean, "help Respondents so that Respondents would not show a loss." Petitioner testified that he had understood on June 7 that he was "not going to ride no freight" on the load. Smith concurred that this phrase he had used was mutually understood to mean that Respondents agreed to pick up the cost of freight. Respondent Smith considered the arrangement reached on June 7 to be a brokeraged deal wherein Respondent Dealers would "ride the freight" and Petitioner would "ride the melons," that is, Respondents expected Petitioner to absorb any loss occasioned by bad melons. Petitioner, on the other hand, considered all the watermelons accepted without reservation by Hires and Smith when they stepped off the half-loaded truck on June 7, 1992 and continued to load the truck with melons of questionable ripeness. Despite Petitioner's first assertion that he considered Bobby Patton's acceptance of the melons on Friday, June 5 to have been made on behalf of Respondents, that testimony is found to be contrary to his subsequent and more credible testimony that he considered Dale Hires to be acting for Respondents on June 7 and that he personally negotiated with Jim Smith on June 6 and June 7, after Bobby Patton was out of the picture. Respondents did nothing to cloak Bobby Patton, an independent contractor who "finds" melon fields, with apparent agency to negotiate the final "deal" for them with Petitioner. The "deal" between Petitioner and Respondents, such as it was, was finally and fully negotiated on June 7 between Petitioner and Respondent Jim Smith. The "deal" applied only to a certain specified segment of Petitioner's watermelon crop. Respondent Dealers thereafter handled a total of ten loads of watermelons. Respondent Dealers paid Petitioner satisfactorily on nine of the ten loads Only Load 2051, the first load, presented any problems. No agreement as to Respondents accepting all of Petitioner's field of watermelons was ever reached between the parties. Petitioner lost money with regard to the rest of his field, but that loss is in no way attributable to Respondents, despite Petitioner's expressed frustration in that regard. Petitioner heard nothing from Respondents until he requested payment and to "settle up" concerning all ten loads, approximately June 17, 1992. At that time, Jim Smith gave Petitioner settlement documents, including weight tickets and invoices for all ten loads at one time in a large envelope. Petitioner termed these documents "confirmations." At the time Smith handed Petitioner the envelope, Smith mentioned to Petitioner that one load had a problem with it. He did not give Petitioner any further information about which load had the problem. Before putting the confirmations in the envelope, Jim Smith had written across them, " * protect shipper on quality (ripe)." Petitioner testified that if this phrase had been on the documents, he did not see it, and if he had seen the phrase, he would not have understood it. Jim Smith had originally been promised $3,564.00 on Load 2051 in a telephone conversation with the ultimate recipient/receiver. He had based his June 6 offer and "deal" on June 7 with Petitioner for an expected gross to Petitioner of $1,734.04 in anticipation of the Respondents realizing the full amount of $3,564.00 from the receiver. Smith testified that when Load 2051 reached the receiver, it was rejected by the receiver due to the melons being overripe and hollow-hearted and that a federal inspection paid for by the receiver showed 15 percent to 40 percent of the samples were hollow hearted and the overall samples in the load was 25 percent, with bruising throughout but with the highest percentage in the lower layer of the piled watermelons, and some sunburn. He produced a federal inspection sheet dated June 10, 1992 (three days after the melons left Petitioner's field), covering an estimated sixteen hundred melons to the same effect. Respondent Smith had mailed this inspection sheet to Petitioner only in August 1992, with the final settlement documents and Respondents' check covering three loads, including Load 2051. The inspection sheet indicates "Midwest Marketing 2051" and "North Coast Brokerage, Cleveland, Ohio and carrier 39TR337-AL." The settlement sheets show the same trailer license number for Load 2051. (P-2) Smith also produced a bill of lading showing that North Coast Produce received carrier 39TR337 and rejected 15 melons cut for inspection, 238 melons bruised and racked, and seven decayed melons on June 10, 1992. The bill of lading shows 260 out of 1568 melons or roughly 17 percent of the load were rejected by the receiver. (R-5) Smith also produced a Norman's Brokerage invoice for shipping that trailer, for which shipping he says he paid $1,676.16, (R-4) and an invoice showing he was paid only $1,700.00 by the receiver for this load (R-2). Neither the receiver, the federal inspector, nor any trucker testified. Smith testified that after the receiver rejected some or all of Load 2051, he thought he would get at least $1,743.04 from the receiver but the receiver's check to him was rounded to only $1,700.00. The foregoing shows that Respondent Smith ultimately accepted, without dispute, the $1,700.00 paid him by the receiver which amount was less than 50 percent of the originally promised amount and which amount did not comport with a load that was at the worst only 15 percent to 40 percent bad as per the inspection report and which the bill of lading shows contained only 260 or 17 percent rejected melons. When Jim Smith totalled out the final settlement sheets for Petitioner in August 1992, Smith intended to deduct $1,676.16 for shipping and $108.00 as a "finder's fee" he had paid to independent contractor Bobby Patton from the $1,700.00 that he had actually been paid by the receiver, thus showing a net loss to Respondents on Load 2051 of $84.16. Instead, he explained Respondents' loss to Petitioner in the final August 1992 settlement documents as "original invoice $3,564.00, (meaning the originally anticipated revenues to Respondents) less actual receipts $1,743.04, (meaning the amount Smith had expected to receive after federal inspection and rejection of part of Load 2051 by the receiver, and not what Smith actually received from the receiver) for a balance of $1,820.96." Smith labelled that figure of $1,743.04 as "customer deducts" meaning it was Respondents' net loss due to actions of the receiver. He then deducted the $1,820.96 figure from the total amount owed by Respondents to Petitioner for three loads. Mr. Smith admitted he had no authority or justification per his agreement with Petitioner for deducting the finder's fee of $108.00 he paid to Bobby Patton or his additional loss of $43.04, which occurred when the recipient promised $1743.04 and paid $1700.00. He also admitted he had no authority per Respondents' agreement with Petitioner to deduct anything attributable to freight charges.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a Final Order awarding Petitioner $1,820.96 on Load 2051 only and binding Respondents to pay the full amount, but which in South Carolina Insurance Company's case shall be only to the extent of its bond. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Greg Rushton 10940 N. Circle M Avenue Dunnellon, Florida 32630 James R. Smith Randall Smith Midwest Marketing Company Post Office Box 193 Vincennes, IN 47591 South Carolina Insurance Company 1501 Lady Street Columbia, SC 29201
