The Issue The issue for determination is whether Department of Citrus Rules 20-1.009 and 20-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, as alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact John Stephens, Inc., Petitioner, was at all times material hereto a Florida corporation duly licensed as a citrus fruit dealer in the State of Florida. J. A. Stephens, Inc., was a Florida corporation, and held a valid fruit dealer’s license in the State of Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, John A. Stephens, served as an officer and director of J. A. Stephens, Inc. John A. Stephens is not an officer, director or shareholder of John Stephens, Inc. John A. Stephens, Jr. is the president and sole director of John Stephens, Inc. and is not an officer, director nor shareholder of J. A. Stephens, Inc. On or about September 26, 1996, Petitioners, John Stephens, Inc., and John A. Stephens, applied to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to register John A. Stephens as an agent of John Stephens, Inc., pursuant to Section 601.601, Florida Statutes. The application form furnished by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services indicates that the licensed dealer seeking registration of an agent agrees to “... accept full responsibility for all his activities....” (Petitioners’ Exhibit 1) By letter dated December 26, 1996, Petitioners were advised by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that their application for registration of John A. Stephens as an agent of John Stephens, Inc., had been denied on the basis of Rule 20-1.010, Florida Administrative Code. As indicated in the notice, that rule provides, in part, that an application for registration of a dealer’s agent can be disapproved if a proposed registrant has a “...record, either as an individual, co- partnership, corporation, association or other business unit, showing unsatisfied debts or orders issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture with respect to prior dealings in citrus fruit.” (Petitioners’ Exhibit 1.) Specifically, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services advised Petitioners that “...Mr. Stephens has not satisfied orders issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture with respect to prior dealings in citrus fruit...,” listing as the final orders in question Petitioners’ Exhibits 3 through 14. Between April 30, 1991, and September 30, 1992, the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services entered a total of 12 final administrative orders in which it found that J. A. Stephens, Inc., was indebted to claimants for various sums arising from prior dealings in citrus fruit. (Petitioners’ Exhibits 3 through 14.) At the time of the action of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services denying Petitioners’ application, there remained amounts due and unpaid on each of the orders entered by the Department against J. A. Stephens, Inc. Petitioner, John A. Stephens was not named as a party respondent in any of the 12 proceedings culminating in final orders against J. A. Stephens, Inc., which formed the basis for the denial by the Department of the application for registration as a citrus dealer’s agent. (Petitioners’ Exhibits 2, and 3 through 14.) In denying a Motion for Relief for Final Order in the only Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services proceeding in which a claimant sought to join Mr. Stephens individually as a party, the Department found that: The complaint filed by Claimant named J. A. Stephens, Inc. as the respondent. Because the complaint was against J. A. Stephens, Inc., it was served on J. A. Stephens, Inc. J. A. Stephens, an individual, was never subjected to the jurisdiction of the Agency with regard to this matter. J. A. Stephens, an individual, was not afforded an opportunity to defend against the allegations of the complaint. There was no discussion at the hearing about whether J. A. Stephens, Inc. was or was not the proper respondent. There was no allegation at the hearing that J. A. Stephens, an individual, was the proper respondent. The Claimant has failed to express any legal basis for grant of his motion and this Agency could find no such basis. This Agency has no personal jurisdiction over J. A. Stephens, an individual, with regard to this matter and therefore cannot enter an order with respect to him. Further, even if such an order were to be entered, it would be of no force or effect because of the lack of personal jurisdiction. (Petitioners’ Exhibit 4, pg. 2.) The rules that are the subject of this proceeding had their inception in 1964, when the Florida Citrus Commission considered and adopted rules governing the registration of agents acting on behalf of licensed citrus dealers. These rules, which appear in the text of the minutes of the Commission as Regulation 105-1.05, are almost verbatim the same rules now found in Chapter 20-1, Florida Administrative Code. (Respondent’s Exhibits 1 and 2.) As reflected in the minutes of the Florida Citrus Commission, the rules were adopted to help protect the grower and shipper or processor in matters involving the normal movement of citrus fruit in all channels of distribution. The regulation was recommended by the Fresh Citrus Shippers Association and was endorsed by a resolution of the Florida Sheriffs Association. In presenting the Sheriffs’ resolution to the Commission, Sheriff Leslie Bessenger of the Florida Citrus Mutual Fruit Protection Division cited the results of a seven-month investigation that found 71 out of 200 registered agents with criminal records. Those two hundred agents represented only nine dealers. (Respondent’s exhibit 1, June 19, 1964, meeting.) Minutes of Commission meetings after rule adoption thoroughly explain the efforts to require accountability and curb abuse of the dealer- agent relationship. The rules, as they appear today in the Florida Administrative Code, have not been revised since July 1, 1975.
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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent Clark's Country Farmers Market, Inc. owes Petitioner a sum of money for shipments of citrus fruit.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Parties and Their Problem Spyke's Grove and Clark's are "citrus fruit dealers" operating within the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. As a wholesale shipper, Spyke's Grove packages and arranges for delivery of citrus products pursuant to purchase orders that retail sellers such as Clark's submit. The packages typically are labeled with the retail seller's name, and thus the retail buyer (and the recipient, if the citrus is purchased as a gift) usually will not be aware of Spyke's Grove's involvement. The instant case involves a series of orders that Clark's placed with Spyke's Grove between October and December 1999 for packages of gift fruit. Under a number of informal, largely unwritten contracts, Spyke's Grove agreed, each time it received an order from Clark's, to ship a gift fruit box or basket to the donee designated by Clark's' retail customer, for which fruit shipment Clark's agreed to pay Spyke's Grove. Spyke's Grove alleges that Clark's failed to pay in full for all of the gift fruit packages that Clark's ordered and Spyke's Grove duly shipped. Clark's contends (though not precisely in these terms) that Spyke's Grove materially breached the contracts, thereby discharging Clark's from further performance thereunder. The Transactions From mid-October 1999 until around December 12, 1999, Clark's faxed or e-mailed to Spyke's Grove approximately 350 individual orders for gift fruit packages. Among other information, each order consisted of a shipping label that identified the product (e.g. the type of gift box or basket), the intended recipient, and the destination. Spyke's Grove manifested its intent to fill these orders by faxing statements of acknowledgment to Clark's, by telephoning Clark's, or both. Although the many contracts that arose from these transactions were thus documented, the writings left much unsaid. For example, the parties did not explicitly agree in writing that Spyke's Grove would deliver the subject gift baskets to the donees before Christmas, nor did they make any express oral agreements to this effect.1 Further, the parties did not specifically agree that Spyke's Grove would be obligated to deliver the gift fruit into the hands of the donees and bear the risk of loss until such tender of delivery. Rather, the contracts between Spyke's Grove and Clark's were ordinary shipment contracts that required Spyke's Grove to put the goods into the possession of carriers (such as the U.S. Postal Service or United Parcel Service) who in due course would deliver the packages to the donees. For many weeks, until early December 1999, Clark's placed orders, and Spyke's Grove filled them, under the arrangement just described. The relationship was not completely trouble-free, for the parties had some problems with duplicate orders. Most, if not all, of these difficulties stemmed from the implementation of a computerized ordering system which allowed Clark's to "export" orders directly to Spyke's Grove's electronic database. The parties recognized at the time that errors were occurring, and they attempted contemporaneously to identify and purge unintended duplicates. Pursuant to the course of dealing between these parties, Spyke's Grove filled orders that were not affirmatively identified as errors prior to the scheduled shipment date. The Fire On the night of Sunday, December 12, 1999, a devastating fire at Spyke's Grove's premises caused substantial damage, temporarily disrupting its citrus packing and shipping operations at the peak of the holiday season. Working through and around the loss, Spyke's Grove soon recovered sufficiently to reopen for business. By around noon on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, its telephone service had been restored, and activities relating to shipping resumed on Friday, December 17, 1999. The Aftermath Meantime, Clark's contends, customers had begun calling Clark's on December 10, 1999, to complain that gift fruit packages were not being received as promised. None of the customers testified at hearing, however, and therefore no competent, non-hearsay evidence establishes the contents of their alleged out-of-court statements. On December 14, 1999, following several unsuccessful attempts to communicate with Spyke's Grove shortly after the fire (about which Clark's remained unaware), Denise Clark, acting on behalf of Clark's, reached Robert Spiece, a representative of Spyke's Grove, on his cell phone. At hearing, Ms. Clark and Mr. Spiece gave conflicting accounts as to the substance of their December 14, 1999, telephone conversation. Neither disputed, however, that during this conversation Ms. Clark and Mr. Spiece agreed, at Ms. Clark's request, that all orders of Clark's not yet shipped by Spyke's Grove would be canceled, effective immediately, as a result of the fire. Although Ms. Clark claimed that Mr. Spiece further informed her that Spyke's Grove could not identify which orders had been shipped, the factfinder does not believe that Mr. Spiece made such a sweeping negative statement. Rather, as Mr. Spiece explained at hearing, Ms. Clark probably was told that information regarding the filled orders would not be available that day. Without waiting for further information from Spyke's Grove, Clark's began calling its retail customers to ascertain whether they had received packages that were supposed to have been shipped by Spyke's Grove. Employees of Clark's who had participated in this process——which took four to five days—— testified at hearing about conversations between themselves and various customers. As uncorroborated hearsay, however, the out- of-court statements attributed to these customers were not competent substantial evidence upon which a relevant finding of fact, e.g. that any particular customer or customers had not received their gift fruit, could be based. Moreover, this hearsay evidence, even if competent, would still have been too anecdotal to establish persuasively any widespread failure on the part of the carriers to deliver the packages shipped by Spyke's Grove. On December 15, 1999, Spyke's Grove prepared three draft invoices for the gift fruit packages that Clark's had ordered and which Spyke's Grove had shipped before December 12, 1999. Numbered 1999113001, 1999121101, and 1999121201, the invoices sought payment of $688.72, $2,415.48, and $298.66, respectively. On the first page of Invoice #1999121201, Barbara Spiece, the President of Spyke's Grove, wrote: Some of these were lost in the fire. "A" day left in the morning. "Springfield" was on the floor to go out that night. I realize there are many duplicates in these shipped reports. We tried to watch for them but with different order numbers it was very difficult. Just cross them out [and] you will not be charged for them. I apologize for all of the problems we have had this season [illegible] wish you luck. These bills were faxed to, and received by, Clark's on December 16, 1999. Clark's did not pay the invoices, or dispute them, or cross out the unintended duplicate orders (as it had been invited to do) to effect a reduction in the outstanding balance. Instead, Clark's ignored Spyke's Grove's requests for payment. Not only that, in disregard of its existing contractual obligations and with no advance notice to Spyke's Grove, Clark's proceeded on its own to fill all of the orders that it had placed with Spyke's Grove before December 12, 1999——including those orders that Spyke's Grove, through its draft invoices, claimed to have shipped. Even after the fact, Clark's failed to inform Spyke's Grove that it had, in effect, repudiated its contractual promises to pay Spyke's Grove for the gift fruit packages already shipped as of December 12, 1999 (i.e. the orders not canceled on December 14, 1999). The Inevitable Dispute Having heard nothing from Clark's in response to its December 16, 1999, fax, Spyke's Grove sent its invoices out again, in final form, on January 25, 2000.2 This time, Ms. Spiece did not inscribe any instructions to cross out duplicates for a discount. Numbered 11063001 ($688.72), 11063002 ($2,449.14), and 11063003 ($195.52), these bills totaled $3,333.38. Each of these invoices contained the following boilerplate "terms": Net 14 days prompt payment is expected and appreciated. A 1 ½% monthly service charge (A.P.R. 18% per annum) may be charged on all past due accounts. Customer agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorneys [sic] fees and court costs, should collection efforts ever become necessary. Clark's did not remit payment or otherwise respond to Spyke's Grove's statements. Accordingly, on June 20, 2000, Spyke's Grove sent a letter to the Department requesting assistance. Clark's was provided a copy of this letter. Shortly thereafter, Spyke's Grove filed a Complaint with the Department, initiating the instant proceeding. Ultimate Factual Determinations Clark's refusal to pay for the goods ordered from and shipped by Spyke's Grove constituted a breach of the contracts between the parties. Spyke's Grove did not materially breach the agreements. Further, Clark's did not object, within a reasonable period of time, to the statements of account that Spyke's Grove rendered preliminarily on December 16, 1999, and finally on January 25, 2000. Accordingly, these invoices amount to an account stated concerning the transactions between the parties. Clark's failed to overcome the presumption of correctness that attaches to an account stated, either by proving fraud, mistake, or error. Spyke's Grove has suffered an injury as a result of Clark's' breach. Spyke's Grove's damages consist of the principal amount of the debt together with pre-award interest at the statutory rate. Accordingly, Spyke's Grove is entitled to recover the following amounts from Clark's: Principal Due Date Statutory Interest $3,333.38 2/08/99 $ 298.66 (2/08/00 - 12/31/00) $ 335.56 (1/01/01 - 11/30/01) $3,333.38 $ 634.22 Interest will continue to accrue on the outstanding balance of $3,333.38 in the amount of $1.00 per day from December 1, 2001, until the date of the final order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order awarding Spyke's Grove the sum of $3,333.38, together with pre- award interest in the amount of $634.22 (through November 30, 2001), plus additional interest from December 1, 2001, until the date of the final order, which will accrue in the amount of $1.00 per day. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 29th day of November, 2001.
The Issue The primary issue in this hearing was the existence of a contract between M. Stembridge and Jack's Fruit Company under which monies were owed Stembridge.
Findings Of Fact Prior to August 5, 1974, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who was in the grove caretaking business, called Mr. Jack Goldtrap by telephone relative to the sale of citrus fruit on properties managed by her for her mother-in-law and herself. Their discussion regarding the sale of the fruit and the terms was incorporated with the contract, Exhibit 1, which Mr. Goldtrap sent to Mrs. Stembridge together with a check for $7500. Mrs. Stembridge executed the contract, accepted the check, and returned the executed contract to Mr. Goldtrap. This contract recites that Mr. Goldtrap had purchased " all fruit on the following groves at market price at time of picking less 50 cents plus picking cost". Thereafter the contract lists the groves subject to the contract: "Home Bloc, Poor Prospect and R. F. Stembridge grove." The testimony was uncontroverted that the fruit which is the subject of the instant controversy was located within the groves enumerated in the contract, however, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge stated that it had not been her intent to sell the fruit in controversy, but she was uncertain whether this was communicated to Mr. Goldtrap prior to the execution of the contract. Mr. Goldtrap testified that he felt he had purchased all the fruit on the groves as stated in the contract. The Hearing Officer finds that the contract, Exhibit 1, takes precedent over any prior verbal agreement between the parties to the contract and that Mr. Goldtrap purchased all fruit in the grove identified therein. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge and R. M. Stembridge testified that subsequent to the written contract with Mr. Goldtrap that R. M. Stembridge entered into an oral agreement to purchase the fruit in controversy from Mrs. Stembridge (the mother of R. M. Stembridge and mother-in-law of Mrs. Barbara Stembridge, who is the sister-in-law of R. M. Stembridge). R. M. Stembridge desired the fruit for sale in his roadside stand at his service station, and planned to pick the fruit in controversy himself on a piecemeal basis over several months. Pursuant to her mother-in-law's Instructions, Mrs. Barbara Stembridge contacted T. G. Mixon, a field superintendent with 31 years experience to estimate the value of the fruit in controversy. T. G. Mixon looked at the trees and crop in controversy late in 1974 and estimated in value to R. M. Stembridge as $3/box; however, he qualified his estimate stating that this was only a valid estimate of its value to R. M. Stembridge based on his particular intended use and that its market value was no where near that figure. R. M. Stembridge paid the agreed upon price of $900 to his mother-in-law for the fruit in controversy. Prior to picking the fruit he had purchased, Mr. Goldtrap visited the groves and was shown the groves, their boundaries, and the fruit in controversy by Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman. This fruit was red grapefruit which is generally unsuitable for juice production. Such fruit cannot be economically picked for juice because there is no market for the unacceptable fruit. Mr. Goldtrap was advised by Mrs. Stembridge's foreman that Mr. Stembridge was interested in the fruit. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge testified that she thought that her foreman had told an unknown person that the red grapefruit had been promised to her brother-in-law. Mr. Goldtrap decided not to pick the red grapefruit, but to leave the fruit on the trees, and instructed his picking crew supervisors to check with R. M. Stembridge to determine which of the fruit be desired. In addition to the red grapefruit in controversy, R. M. Stembridge also had agreed to purchase white grapefruit from approximately 10 trees adjoining his service station, a fact unknown to Mr. Goldtrap or his supervisors. When the supervisors called on Mr. Stembridge to find out which trees should be spared, Stembridge thinking that they were referring to the white grapefruit trees near his station and that they had been shown the red grapefruit trees by his sister-in-law's foreman told them to begin their picking and when they got down to the station he would show them the trees to spare. Mrs. Barbara Stembridge's foreman did not instruct the picking supervisors and the picking crew picked the red grapefruit in controversy. When Mr. Stembridge became aware of the reds having been picked, he contacted Mr. Goldtrap. Mr. Stembridge was very irate and Mr. Goldtrap was very apologetic not fully realizing how the fruit had been picked when it had been his intent to spare the fruit. At this point, Stembridge demanded $3/box for the fruit, and Mr. Goldtrap stated that was a high price. Thereafter, in either this conversation or a subsequent one, Stembridge stated perhaps he knew a man who would buy them, however, when contacted this individual was not interested. When Goldtrap was advised of this, Goldtrap said he would send another truck and collect the red grapefruit. The issue presented in this controversy, therefore, becomes a question of whether there was a transaction between Mr. Goldtrap and Mr. R. M. Stembridge. It is clear from the contract, Exhibit 1, that Mr. Goldtrap owned the fruit in question at the time Mr. Stembridge "purchased" the fruit from his mother. Goldtrap intended to leave the fruit because of it low value and instructed his supervisors to contact Stembridge so that Stembridge could identify the trees in which be was interested. However, these trees were not identified by Stembridge because Stembridge thinking the supervisors were referring to the white grapefruit trees, did not indicate the trees he desired. Therefore, Goldtrap's intent to relinquish his right to the fruit was never effectively communicated to Mrs. Barbara Stembridge or to R. M. Stembridge. Mr. Stembridge's demand for $3/box for the grapefruit was in essence a demand for damages and not an offer for sale. Even if it were viewed as an offer (overlooking Stembridge's lack of ownership), there is no evidence that Goldtrap accepted the offer. His response was to advise Stembridge that he would send another truck to pick up the fruit. This action was consistent with his prior contract with Barbara Stembridge to purchase all the fruit in the groves and his legal obligation. See Section 601.64(3), Florida Statutes. The testimony was clear that Mr. Goldtrap had not paid out the moneys received from the sale of the red grapefruit because of the questions raised by R. M. Stembridge. However, Barbara Stembridge has filed no complaint in this matter, and based upon the foregoing findings that there is no transaction or contract between R. M. Stembridge and Goldtrap, R. M. Stembridge is not entitled to an accounting or to payment for the fruit in controversy.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Delicious Citrus Packing, LLC (Respondent), as a citrus fruit dealer, has failed to pay Petitioner for citrus fruit, as required by section 601.64(4), Florida Statutes; and, if so, the amount that Respondent owes Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Citrus Fruit Dealer's License number 252, effective August 31, 2015, for the 2015-16 season. The surety is Respondent Platte River Insurance Company. During the 2015-16 season, Petitioner picked citrus fruit from the groves of various third parties and transported the fruit to Respondent, which cleaned, waxed, and graded the fruit prior to selling it to various retailers, primarily, it seems, in South Florida. During the 2014-15 season, Petitioner and Respondent entered into contracts covering their respective rights and obligations in connection with transactions identical to those set forth in the preceding paragraph. An example is a contract dated April 10, 2015, signed by Petitioner and Respondent, specifying that Petitioner would purchase from a named third party from a named portion of a grove approximately 2000 citrus fruit for a delivered price of $16 per box with payment due upon delivery. The contract provides that Petitioner makes no allowance for fruit not meeting Respondent's specifications because Respondent had examined and preapproved the fruit on the tree. The parties did not document their agreement during the 2015-16 season, but the conditions were identical, although the price per box decreased, as set forth below. As was their practice during the preceding season, prior to the purchase and delivery by Petitioner, representatives of both companies visited the grove with the fruit still on the tree, and Respondent's representative approved the fruit, so, again, the agreement permitted no allowances for nonconforming fruit. Petitioner produced trip tickets documenting the delivery of 791 boxes of citrus fruit--all oranges--from September 25, 2015, through October 24, 2015. At this point, representatives of Petitioner and Respondent met to discuss the price of the fruit. Respondent complained that the fruit was too expensive based on what it could charge its purchasers, so Petitioner went back to the grove owners and negotiated a reduction in price. On November 2, 2015, Petitioner agreed to reduce its price from an undisclosed price per box to $15.50 per box, so as to reduce the outstanding balance for the 7791 boxes already delivered to $120,760.50. At that time, Respondent paid $85,250.50, leaving a balance due of $35,510. The parties promptly resumed their business dealings. A trip ticket dated November 2, 2015, documented the delivery of 550 boxes, for which the agreed-upon price was the $15.50 that the parties had set for the previous deliveries. However, even this price proved too high for Respondent, so the next two trip tickets, dated November 3 and 4, 2015, for a total of 1072 boxes, were priced at $13.50 per box. At some point, Respondent made two payments totaling $8811, and Respondent processed other fruit for Petitioner, earning a total credit of $2486 to be applied to the outstanding balance. These transactions reduced the balance to $47,210, which is the amount that Respondent presently owes Petitioner. The finding in the preceding paragraph reduced Petitioner's claim by $7157. As shown on the invoice dated April 6, 2016, received into evidence as Petitioner Exhibit 5, this balance was carried forward from the 2014-15 season. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, this case is limited to the 2015-16 season due to the timing of the filing of the Complaint. The findings in the preceding paragraphs discredit the testimony of Respondent's witnesses as to bad fruit that could not be sold. First, Respondent bore the risk of fruit that could not be sold for any reason, including spoilage. Second, Respondent did not assert this complaint when it negotiated a new purchase price on November 2, 2015. Third, Respondent did not object to the series of invoices that Petitioner submitted to Respondent, culminating in the April 6 invoice. Fourth, the testimony of Respondent's owner was vague and confusing, but twice seemed to confirm the indebtedness.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order determining that Respondent has violated section 601.64(4) by failing to pay Petitioner the sum of $47,210 for citrus fruit that Petitioner sold to Respondent during the 2015-16 shipping season and fixing a reasonable time within which Respondent shall pay such sum to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Alan Parkinson, Bureau Chief Bureau of Mediation and Enforcement Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Rhodes Building, R-3 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6500 (eServed) Emmitt King, Jr. KAD Harvesting and Hauling, LLC 850 South 21st Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Platte River Insurance Company Attn: Claims Department Post Office Box 5900 Madison, Wisconsin 53705-0900 Douglas A. Lockwood, Esquire Straughn & Turner, P.A. 255 Magnolia Avenue Southwest Post Office Box 2295 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 (eServed) Dwight Johnathan Rhodeback, Esquire Rooney & Rooney, P.A. 1517 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (eServed) Lorena Holley, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 (eServed) Honorable Adam Putnam Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Ingram Grove Services, Inc., (Ingram), was a commercial grower of citrus fruit and a licensed citrus fruit dealer in Florida. Mark Fetzer, Inc. (Fetzer), was also a grower and a licensed citrus fruit dealer in Florida. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company was an insurance company authorized to write surety bonds in this state during the 1991-1992 citrus shipping season and was the underwriter of Fetzer's bond for the transaction in issue herein. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was an insurance company authorized to write surety bonds in this state during the 1991-1992 citrus shipping season and was the underwriter of Ingram's bond for the transaction herein. By contract number 518, dated January 14, 1992, and drafted on the letterhead of Mark Fetzer, Inc., Ingram, the grower, sold and conveyed to Fetzer, the buyer, approximately 20,000 boxes of valencia oranges at a price of $10.50 per box, with a moving date of April 30, 1992. This description was intended to cover all valencia oranges grown by Ingram and contained in Suncrest #11 field in Sebring, Florida and included transportation to Polk County. Ingram was authorized to, and did, request a deposit of $1.00 per box, and by check dated April 27, 1992, Fetzer paid Ingram the sum of $20,000. The oranges were to be delivered by Ingram to the Commercial Carriers Cold Storage, (CCCS), facility in Auburndale, Florida. The entire crop of fruit covered by this contract was to be paid for within 30 days of delivery to CCCS. The contract did not prohibit Fetzer from re-selling the fruit covered thereby. Ingram and Fetzer had done business together for several years, since 1985. In every case, each had paid what was owed to the other, but it is admitted that on occasion, such payment was delayed for a short time. Neither had ever failed to ultimately pay what was owed the other, however. Sometime after delivery of the fruit to CCCS by Ingram, Fetzer sold 3,000 of the boxes to Vero Beach Groves, Inc., (VB), a producer of commercial orange juice for commercial sales. At that time, and at all times pertinent to the issues herein, VB was having financial difficulties. Evidence of record indicates that at the time, VB owed approximately $32,000 to Fetzer, somewhat more than $60,000 to Ingram, and over $600,000 to Florida Growers, another entity not pertinent to the issues herein. The terms of Fetzer's sale to VB called for a payment of $13.65 per box. This included $11.65 per box for the oranges then delivered, including 15 brokerage, and $2.00 per box to satisfy VB's antecedent debt to Fetzer. If all the Ingram fruit were resold by Fetzer to VB, this procedure would have paid off VB's debt to Fetzer before all the Ingram fruit was pulled out of storage. When the antecedent debt was liquidated, the price per box would have been reduced to $11.65. Fetzer had not allowed VB's debt to it to grow very large, and the above practice, which had been followed for several years, had to this point, been successful. There was no dispute under the terms of the contract between Ingram and Fetzer until sometime in mid-May, 1992 when, prior to the delivery of any fruit, Mr. Ingram called Mr. Fetzer and asked for a meeting. At that meeting, Mr. Ingram told Mr. Fetzer that unless an agreement was made to get him, Ingram, a debt reduction procedure similar to Fetzer's, he would not make available to Fetzer the fruit called for under the contract. Mr. Ingram indicated at the hearing that when he heard Fetzer had contracted with VB, in light of VB's tenuous financial condition, he was concerned about being able to get paid and this caused him to seek the meeting with Fetzer. However, he did not communicate this to Fetzer nor did he ask Fetzer for payment in advance or some security for the obligation. In fact, according to Fetzer, he had the money available, in cash, to pay the entire amount owed Ingram if necessary. In addition, Fetzer told Ingram that even if VB could not take the fruit, there were at least 3 -5 other "juicers" to whom he could sell the fruit and pay Ingram. In point of fact, the fruit was subsequently sold, by Ingram, to other juice processors at a per box price which varied from $12.50 to $13.35. Nonetheless, Fetzer tried to work the situation out for all concerned with no consideration given him for any purported change to the contract. Faced with the potential for not being able to get the fruit for sale to VB, the contract with whom was worth in excess of $200,000 to him, Fetzer met with a representative of VB and reached an agreement with it whereby VB would pay an additional $3.35 over the $13.65 so that Ingram could be paid. At this meeting he was told by Mr. Kordick, VB's vice president, that VB would work something out with Ingram for the remaining fruit. Thereafter, VB agreed with Ingram to make additional payments to Ingram. It appears, however, that this agreement to pay the extra on Ingram's antecedent debt was more acquiescence to coercion than voluntary agreement. Fetzer then released the first shipment of oranges to VB. VB paid for the shipment of oranges when it came in.It also issued four checks in the amount of $1,680.00 each fdor payment on VB's antecedent debt to Ingram which were made payable to Ingram or Fetzer. These four checks were cashed by Fetzer and were dishonored. They were ultimately redeemed by VB after several weeks, but none of the funds were transmitted by Fetzer to Ingram. Fetzer kept them as compensation for the amount of profit he lost because of Ingram's refusal to release any more oranges after the first shipment. In addition, Fetzer did not pay Ingram for the first 3,000 box shipment. After the first shipment was delivered to VB, Mr. Fetzer was contacted by VB's representative, Mr. Kordick, who advised VB could not pay the amount asked for the fruit which included the "surcharge" to reimburse Ingram because the processed juice would not bring enough to cover it. Admittedly, Mr. Fetzer did not ask Mr. Ingram to rescind the requirement for the "surcharge" payment. Had he done so and had Ingram agreed, it is most likely that VB could have purchased all the oranges from the entire contract and paid for it. All Fetzer did was tell Ingram he should not place the extra burden on VB, and as it was, VB went out of business. Mr. Fetzer knew of the arrangements for the "surcharge" that Ingram wanted before the delivery of the one shipment to VB and requested that shipment knowing what was required. He decided to go along with Ingram to see what would happen even though he felt by then that Ingram had breached the contract. However, he did not put this in writing to Ingram. He felt he had no choice due to Mr. Ingram's representation to him at their May meeting that it would be Ingram's way or not at all. Fetzer went along with it because he saw it as the only way to potentially get the money owed him by VB. Considering the net amount paid by Fetzer as deposit, ($20,000 - $3,000 = $17,000); the amount of antecedent debt unrecoverable due to Ingram's actions, ($26,000) and the anticipated profit lost of the remaining boxes un- delivered by Ingram, ($14,950), Ingram owes Fetzer a gross total of $57,590. From this must be deducted the $6,720 which Fetzer collected from VB on Ingram's behalf but which was not delivered to Ingram, and the $31,500 unpaid for the 3,000 boxes delivered, leaving Ingram's net obligation to Fetzer as $19,730.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that A Final Order be issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture awarding the sum of $19730 to Mark Fetzer, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 1st day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR FETZER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of the law. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Accepted as a restatement of the case history. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the debt of VB to Ingram was approximately $60,000. Accepted that no tripartite agreement was reached. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. Not a Finding of fact but a restatement of testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted that Ingram resold to others the fruit not released to Fetzer. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of law. Accepted and incorporated herein with amount stated. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR INGRAM: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence rejected in so far as it indicates a tri-party agreement. VB's participation was more a matter of acquiescence than agreement. Second sentence accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence rejected. Fetzer did not decline to take fruit as called for in the original contract. Second sentence accepted as it notes the sale to third parties but not "as a result" of Fetzer's failure to take the fruit. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of law. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected. Not a proper Finding of Fact but more a comment on the state of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Lockwood, III, Esquire Peterson, Myers, Craig, Crews, Brandon & Puterbaugh, P.A. P.O. Drawer 7608 Lake Region Plaza, Suite 300 141 5th Street, N.W. Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7608 C. Kennon Hendrix, Esquire Hendrix & Brennan P.O. Box 520- 2043 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32961-0520 Chester C. Payne Financial Examiner Analyst Office of Citrus Bond and License Division of Marketing Development Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 1072 500 Third Street, N.W. Winter Haven, Florida 33882-1072 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel 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
The Issue Whether Respondent, C & J Fruit and Melons, Inc. (C & J Fruit), a citrus fruit dealer and registered packer, owes Petitioner, John Stephens, Inc., a citrus dealer, a sum of money for grapefruit and oranges sold and delivered to C & J Fruit's citrus fruit-packing house for processing.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John Stephens, Inc., is a Florida-licensed citrus fruit dealer operating within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' regulatory jurisdiction. Respondent, C & J Fruit & Melons, Inc., was a Florida- licensed citrus fruit dealer and operated a registered packing house in Frostproof, Florida, during the 2001-2002 citrus shipping season. Respondent, Auto Owners Insurance, was the surety for C & J Fruit's citrus fruit dealer's license in the amount of $14,000.00, for the 2001-2002 season. At the beginning of the 2001-2002 season, Petitioner and C & J Fruit entered into a verbal contract under which Petitioner agreed to contract with various grove owners and grove harvesters in the Polk County, Florida, area. The understanding was that Petitioner would obtain various varieties of grapefruit, oranges, and tangerines from the growers and harvesters and deliver the fruit to C & J Fruit's packing house. Petitioner was responsible for payment to the grove owners and harvesters. C & J Fruit would process the fruit, supply the citrus fruit to retail and wholesale suppliers, and account and pay for the fruit received from Petitioner. Petitioner and C & J Fruit had conducted business in this fashion for many years prior to this season. On October 23, 2001, C & J Fruit sought protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case No. 01-19821-8W1. Following the filing of bankruptcy, no other supplier would provide C & J Fruit with citrus fruit. With Petitioner's consent, C & J Fruit filed an emergency motion to authorize a secured interest to Petitioner, if it would continue to supply C & J Fruit's packing house with fruit. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, and in November 2001, Petitioner began supplying C & J Fruit's packing house with fresh citrus fruit. The preponderance of evidence proves that Petitioner delivered to C & J Fruit's packing house during November 2001 pursuant to the contract: 540 boxes of grapefruit at $3.00 per box for a total of $1,620.00; 3,044 boxes of oranges at $4.00 per box for a total of $12,176.00; 330 boxes of tangerines at $3.50 per box for a total of $1,155.00; and 1,953 boxes of navel oranges at $2.00 per box for a total of $3,906.00. C & J Fruit was billed for this amount. Accordingly, C & J Fruit was obligated to pay Petitioner the total sum of $18,857.00 for the fruit. When payment was not received in a timely matter, shipment of citrus fruit to the packing house was discontinued. Petitioner performed all of its duties under the contract, and C & J Fruit failed to pay or account for the citrus fruit delivered to its packing house under the terms of the contract. C & J Fruit is, therefore, indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $18,857.00
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered requiring Respondent, C & J Fruit and Melons, Inc., to pay to Petitioner, John Stephens, Inc., the sum of $18,857.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Clemon Browne, President C & J Fruit & Melons, Inc. Post Office Box 130 Lake Hamilton, Florida 33851-0130 John A. Stephens John Stephens, Inc. Post Office Box 1098 Fort Meade, Florida 33841 Jason Lowe, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. Post Office Box 3 Lakeland, Florida 33802
The Issue The issues concern the complaint by Petitioner against Respondents for the alleged failure to pay for $125.00 worth of medium zucchini squash also referred to as medium green squash. See Sections 604.15 through 604.30, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sells produce. East Coast purchases produce and resells that produce at wholesale. The transaction which is in dispute here concerns an April 25, 1990 sale of medium zucchini squash. On that date Jerry B. Portnoy, Vice President for East Coast who runs the day to day operations of the company and buys produce spoke with Petitioner. In that conversation, which took place early in the morning, Petitioner stated that he had the squash to sell. Portnoy told Petitioner that he had plenty of that form of produce on hand. Petitioner stated that this was the last picking and that he would give Portnoy a good price. The price that Petitioner mentioned was $2.50 a crate. Mr. Portnoy said that he could use about 100 crates and he reiterated that he had plenty of that type of produce on hand. That comment by Mr. Portnoy met with the remark by Petitioner which was to the effect, that there might be a few additional crates above the 100 discussed. Portnoy said that he did not need any more than 100 crates in that he had plenty of that produce on hand. As Portnoy described at hearing, he felt that he really did not even need 100 crates; however, based upon the past working relationship between the Petitioner and Portnoy he agreed to take 100 crates. Contrary to the agreement between Portnoy and the Petitioner, sometime on the evening of April 25, 1990, Petitioner delivered 236 crates of the squash. No one was at East Coast at its Jacksonville, Florida business location to receive the squash and inspect them. East Coast would not have accepted 236 crates that were delivered if it had known of that number of crates. No one was available to inspect the squash until the following morning. On April 26, 1990, Mr. Portnoy examined the squash and found that some of the product was inferior and was in a state of decay. As a consequence, Mr. Portnoy called the Petitioner on the telephone on that morning and told the Petitioner that the Petitioner had sent too many crates and some of the squash were bad. Nonetheless, Mr. Portnoy told Petitioner that he would work it out as best he could, meaning that he would sell as much of the product as possible. During contact with the Petitioner on the part of East Coast, Petitioner did not ask for a federal inspection. East Coast was able to sell all but 50 crates of the squash as delivered. It submitted payment in the amount of $465 as reflected on the face of the invoice which Petitioner sent to East Coast. That exhibit is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. It reflects that 50 crates were dumped which had they been sold would have been worth $125.00. It is that $125.00 which is in dispute. Mr. Portnoy called the Petitioner after the squash had been sold. That call took place a couple of weeks later. In the course of this conversation the Petitioner said that he did not want to hear about problems anymore and that he wanted to be paid for the full amount of all crates delivered. Mr. Portnoy said that 50 crates had been lost and that the amount being remitted through a check would relate only to those crates that had been sold. This describes the amount remitted on June 15, 1990 set out in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner replied that he did not know if he would cash the check or not. Mr. Portnoy said that the check in the amount of $465.00 was for payment in full. This concluded their business until the time of the complaint filed by the Petitioner. On that facts as reported, there was no agreement to sell more than 100 crates. The additional crates that were sold by East Coast was a gratuitous gesture on the part of East Coast for which Petitioner was paid the full amount. The 50 crates that were not paid for contained inferior products for which Petitioner was not entitled to payment. This speaks to the 50 crates that were dumped which had they been sold would have been worth $125.00.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the complaint of the Petitioner and relieves the Respondents of any financial obligation to pay the contested $125.00 claim. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David Browning c/o David Browning Wholesale Produce 234 Church Street Starke, FL 32091 East Coast Fruit Company Jerry Portnoy, Vice President Post Office Box 2547 Jacksonville, FL 32203 James W. Sears, Esquire 511 North Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioner for Florida- grown citrus products sold to Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Respondent are Florida-licensed citrus fruit dealers operating within the Department's regulatory jurisdiction. Great American was the surety for J and G Citrus' fruit dealer's license for the 2006-2007 citrus shipping season. J and G Citrus is Petitioner's customer. Petitioner ships fruit on behalf of J and G Citrus under their name for a service charge and fee for fruit, the cost of packing, and shipping. Petitioner and Respondent entered a written contract on November 12, 2004, for such services. Cushman's replacements policy provides that a customer should notify Cushman of any problem and the company will refund the monies for the order or replace the package. Cushman guarantees to "honor all replacement requests in a timely manner at no cost to you." J and G Citrus utilized the policy during its contract with Cushman. Cushman delivered the following fruit orders for J and G Citrus from December 22, 2006, to February 16, 2007: 292 navel fruit trays at $3.35 a tray; 168 grapefruit trays at $3.35 a tray; 87 honeybells trays at $6.88 a tray; and 29 tangerine trays for $6.88 at tray. The costs for the fruit shipped totaled $2,339.00. J and G Citrus was invoiced this amount. Accordingly, Respondent was obligated to pay Petitioner the total sum for the fruit. After Cushman Fruit invoiced J and G Citrus for the outstanding balance, no payment was received. On March 28, 2007, Cushman informed J and G Citrus of its bill and told Respondent that "You need to get current." J and G Citrus responded on the same day that it would provide a payment schedule by Monday. On April 23, 2007, J and G Citrus confirmed by email that they were going to start paying and would provide a payment. On May 7, 2007, Cushman requested the payment schedule from J and G Citrus again and informed the company, "I need a response from you today." Cushman never heard further from Respondent regarding payment. To date, the invoices are unpaid and the monies are owed to Cushman. Petitioner performed all of its duties under the contract with J and G Citrus and Respondent failed to pay for the services. J and G Citrus is, therefore, indebted to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered requiring Respondent pay to Petitioner the sum of $2,339.00 DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alvarez Cushman Fruit Company, Inc. 3325 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Rob Brehm Great American Insurance Company Post Office Box 2119 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, M-38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brian D. Jerome Carla Dupleich J & G Citrus Groves 5781 Seminole Way Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Honorable Charles Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Citrus Hill Manufacturing Company (Citrus Hill) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Proctor and Gamble. Citrus Hill is in the business of producing, manufacturing, packaging and distributing citrus products throughout the United States. It's main product has been "Select" orange juice which is 100 percent orange juice. Its principal manufacturing facility is located in Frostproof, Florida. While Citrus Hill has four other manufacturing sites outside the State of Florida, its Florida plant is the only facility for manufacturing frozen products. While it can produce chilled products at its plants located outside Florida, Citrus Hill's Florida plant is necessary to supply the demand for its chilled products on a national basis. In an effort to expand its market, Citrus Hill developed three products which it produces and packs at its plant in Frostproof, Florida. These products are and have been labeled as follows: "Lite Citrus Hill Orange Juice Beverage - 60 percent Orange Juice," "Lite Citrus Hill Grapefruit Juice Beverage - 45 percent Grapefruit Juice," and "Plus Calcium Citrus Hill, Calcium Fortified Grapefruit Juice Beverage - 60 percent Grapefruit Juice." The "lite" beverages are reduced calorie diluted juice beverages with the addition of Nutrasweet. The third product is a diluted grapefruit juice beverage fortified with calcium. By a letter dated March 19, 1987, the Department of Citrus ordered Citrus Hill to change its diluted citrus products labels and informed Citrus Hill that the Department would enforce Rule 20-66.001(4), Florida Administrative Code. That rule provides "Labels for diluted citrus products shall not include the word "juice" in the name of the product." As noted above, Citrus Hill markets and sells its product line throughout the United States. It desires to utilize the names of its diluted juice products as indicated in paragraph two above for three reasons. First, Citrus Hill believes that its labeling is in compliance with federal law. Second, it believes that a product name which includes the word "juice" more fully informs the consumer of the nature of the product because it is more exact, descriptive and less ambiguous than any name not using the word "juice", such as "drink", "ade", or "beverage". Third, Citrus Hill fears that if it were unable to disclose through its product name that the product is primarily a juice product, it would be placed at a competitive disadvantage in the national marketplace where non-Florida producers of similar products would not be bound by the challenged Rule's ban on the use of the word "juice" in the name of diluted juice products. While Citrus Hill could move its packaging facilities outside the state and utilize two product labels (one for Florida shipment and one for the non-Florida market), this alternative would be extremely expensive and would constitute a "distribution nightmare." Many distributors and large retail grocery stores work in multi-state regions and may not be willing to segregate and keep track of petitioner's different product labels for shipment in Florida and in non-Florida states. No other state in the United States prohibits the word "juice" in the labeling of diluted citrus juice products. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, the subject of proper labeling of diluted fruit juice beverages was under discussion by both the Florida Department of Citrus and the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The FDA ultimately rejected the proposal of prohibiting the word "juice" from the name of any product that was not 100 percent pure juice, and also rejected the approach of defining different products through "standards of identity." This latter method of labeling products would have defined a product as "ades" only if containing more than 10 percent, but less than 20 percent, juice, and various other category names based upon the percentage of fruit juice contained in the product. The prohibition against the word "juice" and the "standards of identity" proposals for the labeling of diluted juice products were rejected by the FDA in favor of a common or usual name approach, with a percent declaration of any characterizing ingredient. The pertinent federal regulations addressing the labeling of food products are contained in 21 C.F.R. Chapter 1. The more general regulation appears in 21 C.F.R. 102.5(a) and (b), and states, in pertinent part, as follows: Section 102.5 General Principles. The common or usual name of a food . . . shall accurately identify or describe, in as simple and direct terms as possible, the basic nature of the food or its characterizing properties or ingredients. The name shall be uniform among all identical or similar products and may not be confusingly similar to the name of any other food that is not reasonably encompassed within the same name. Each class or subclass of food shall be given its own common or usual name that states, in clear terms, what it is in a way that distinguishes it from different foods. The common or usual name of a food shall include the percentage(s) of any characterizing ingredient(s) or component(s) when the . . . component(s) . . . has a material bearing on . . . consumer acceptance or when the labeling . . . may otherwise create an erroneous impression that such . . . component(s) is present in an amount greater than is actually the case. The following requirements shall apply unless modified by a specific regulation in Subpart B of this part. The percentage of a characterizing ingredient or component shall be declared on the basis of its quantity in the finished product. . . . The percentage of a characterizing ingredient or component shall be declared-by the words "containing (or contains) --- percent (or percent) ---" . . . with the first blank filled in with the percentage expressed as a whole number not greater than the actual percentage of the ingredient or component named and the second blank filled in with the common or usual name of the ingredient or component. The FDA has also promulgated regulations dealing with the labeling of specific nonstandardized foods, including diluted orange juice beverages and diluted fruit or vegetable juice beverages other than diluted orange juice beverages. With respect to diluted orange juice beverages, 21 C.F.R. Section provides as follows: Diluted Orange Juice Beverages. The common or usual name of a non- carbonated beverage containing less than 100 percent and more than 0 percent orange juice shall be as follows: A descriptive name for the product meeting the requirements of Section 102.5(a) (e.g., diluted orange juice beverage or another descriptive phrase), and A statement of the percent of each juice contained in the beverage in the manner set forth in Section 102.5(b)(2). The percent of the juice shall be declared in 5 percent increments, expressed as a multiple of five not greater than the actual percentage of orange juice in the product, except that the percent of orange juice in products containing more than 0 percent but less than 5-percent orange juice shall be declared in the statement as "less than 5" percent. Diluted fruit or vegetable juice beverages other than diluted orange juice beverages are the subject of 21 C.F.R. Section 102.33, 1/ which provides as follows: Diluted fruit or vegetable juice beverages other than diluted orange juice beverages. The common or usual name of a non- carbonated beverage containing less than 100 percent and more than zero percent fruit or vegetable juice(s), other than only orange juice, shall be as follows: A descriptive name meeting the requirements of Section 102.5(a)(e.g., "diluted grape juice beverage", "grape juice drink", or another descriptive phrase) and A statement of the percent of each juice contained in the beverage in the manner set forth in Section 102.5(b)(2). The percent of the juice shall be declared in five percent increments, expressed as a multiple of five not greater than the actual percentage of juice in the beverage except that the percentage of any juice in beverages containing more than zero percent but less than 5 percent of that juice shall be declared in the statement as "less than 5" percent. The Department of Citrus has conducted two consumer surveys for the purpose of determining whether the word "juice" in a product name of a diluted citrus juice product is confusing or misleading. The Drossler study was conducted in 1972, and concluded that consumers are confused by the word "juice." However, that conclusion appears to be founded on the premise that the only proper use of the word "juice" is in the technical sense of "100 percent pure juice." In other words, what was measured in the survey was the consumer's failure to use the word "juice" in a limited sense to mean "100 percent pure juice." The surveyed consumer was asked to look at several products, and then state "what kind of product is this?" The products viewed consisted of several different dairy products and a citrus beverage. If the consumer used the word "juice" to describe the kind of product pointed to, he was treated as being confused if the product was less than 100 percent juice. No follow-up questions were asked concerning the consumer's understanding of the content of the product. The Chelsea study was conducted at the request of the Department of Citrus in 1987. It, too, concludes that there would be less consumer confusion if the word "juice" were eliminated from products comprised of less than 100 percent pure citrus juice. However, there was evidence that this study attempted to address too many issues, including consumer preferences, and that "question contamination" could well have occurred. This refers to the intentional or unintentional biasing of the interviewees by the ordering or phraseology of the questions asked. Both the Burke study and the Chelsea study indicate that consumers are not confused by a beverage label using the word juice in the product name when it is accompanied by the declaration of the percentage of juice contained in the product. The Burke study was conducted on behalf of the petitioner in 1987. After conducting interviews of 1200 people from all age groups in six different cities throughout the United States, it concluded that there was no significant difference in consumer confusion between the use of the word "juice" and "beverage" in the product name when the percentage of citrus juice content is indicated on the label. In other words, whether the label identified the product as a "juice beverage" or a "beverage", the respondents were able to determine the amount of actual juice contained in the product.
