Findings Of Fact The Petitioners own and operate a farm in St. Johns County, Florida. During the 1991 potato-growing season, they grew atlantic chipping potatoes on their 400-acre farm, as well as on approximately 30 acres leased from another party by their daughter and son-in-law. The Petitioners' business is known as Pacetti Farms. Rubin is an Illinois corporation licensed to do business in Florida as a broker or dealer in agricultural products. Rubin customarily purchases potatoes from growers throughout the country at the appropriate season for resale, typically to various potato chip manufacturing companies. Mr. Rubin appeared at the hearing and testified on behalf of Rubin and as an adverse witness on behalf of the Petitioners. Rubin is licensed and bonded with a surety bond from Continental in accordance with the statutory authority cited below, enforced and regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department"). On December 22, 1990, the Petitioners and Rubin entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase of 50,000 CWT of Florida atlantic chipping potatoes. That contract is in evidence as Exhibit 3 and is also known as the "set price contract". The contract called for shipment of the potatoes at a stated price of $6.35 per CWT, although the parties have stipulated and agreed that the actual contract price was intended as $6.00 per CWT. That figure is not in dispute in this proceeding. Shipment was to be made during the harvesting season between the dates of April 27, 1991 and June 15, 1991. The contract contained an escape clause or exception for "acts of God", with an explanatory parenthetic clause indicating that that was intended to mean circumstances beyond the control of the parties, such as flood, freeze, hail, etc. On or about February 15, 1991, severe cold weather struck the potato- growing area of St. Johns County, Florida. Temperatures ranged from 25 degrees to 19 degrees on that day, with a high wind blowing and very dry conditions. This resulted in soil being blown away from the newly-set potatoes under very cold temperatures. Because of this, the Petitioners had to work with tractors and cultivators far into the night to turn the blown-away soil back into the potato "sets". The Petitioners feared that this would cause some "dry eyes" and, therefore, lowered potato plant and potato production. In fact, however, upon observing the maturing plants during April of 1991, it appeared that the Petitioners would have a healthy, normal crop. The prior year the Petitioners had grown 133,000 CWT of potatoes on their 400 acres (excluding the Kirkers' 30 acres). With this background of an apparently-healthy crop in mind, the Petitioners were approached by Rubin on April 25, 1991 and negotiations ensued which resulted in the sale and purchase from Petitioners to Rubin of six additional loads of potatoes at the open market price of $19.50 per CWT. The six additional loads were in addition to the 50,000 CWT of potatoes agreed upon in the main contract entered into on December 22, 1990. This separate oral agreement for the six loads of potatoes at the market price of $19.50 per CWT was entered into prior to the Petitioners initiating delivery under the terms of the written contract of December 22, 1990. The parties thus agreed for the sale and purchase of six loads of potatoes at that market price to be delivered on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the following week, April 29th, April 30th, and May 1, 1991. Part of the consideration for that oral contract was the Petitioners' ability to furnish the six truckloads of potatoes on short notice, on the dates that Rubin required them. In other words, Rubin needed them in a hurry; and it was apparently worth $19.50 per CWT for him to get the potatoes delivered immediately on the dates requested. In the process of negotiating this oral contract, the Petitioners assured Rubin that he would have sufficient potatoes to meet his 50,000 CWT obligation under the written contract of December 22, 1990. This was not a misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioners, at this time, because the Petitioners, in good faith, believed they would be able to meet the 50,000 CWT set price contract and the oral contract for six additional truckloads, because of their belief concerning their crop estimate. This belief was based upon their observance of an apparently healthy crop and their knowledge that on their 400 acres, the year before, they had grown 133,000 CWT, as well as upon their knowledge that a normal crop estimate for the entire 430 acres at this location, under all of the prevailing circumstances, was 120,400 CWT. In fact, the Petitioners only contracted for 116,650 CWT of potatoes which, based upon a reasonable and appropriate crop estimate for this site and circumstances, would have allowed them to meet all their contracts, including the 50,000 CWT contract between the Petitioners and Rubin, although not all of the market sales for the Kirkers. After having thus assured Mr. Rubin that they could meet the contract of December 22, 1990 and still perform the oral contract for the six truckloads at market price, the Petitioners proceeded to carry out that oral agreement. It was a separate and distinct contract from the written contract dated December 22, 1990. Under the separate oral contract, they delivered the six truckloads of potatoes requested by Rubin. Rubin received them and paid $19.50 per CWT for them. On May 2, 1990, the Petitioners began delivering potatoes to Rubin under the terms and conditions of the written contract of December 22, 1990 and continued the deliveries throughout the remainder of the harvesting season. The first was shipped from Pacetti Farms on May 2, 1991 and the last load delivered to Rubin on that contract was shipped on June 1, 1991. During the 1991 growing and harvesting season, the area, including St. Johns County, experienced substantial crop damage due to excessive frost, rain, hail, and wind, which occurred during February of 1991 and then after April 25, 1991, with particular regard to excessive rainfall in May of 1991. This resulted in the area being declared an agricultural disaster area by the United States Department of Agriculture for that growing season. The Petitioners suffered damage to their crop as a result of these elements in February of 1991, as described above, and by excessive rainfall during May of 1991. Excessive rainfall caused root damage to their crop, which resulted in a lowered yield even though the plants viewed above ground appeared to be normal. This was aggravated by the fact that the Petitioners and other growers were legally unable to use the pesticide "Temik", for control of nematodes, during that growing season. Because of the nature of the crop involved, which grows underground, the potato yield is difficult to estimate at any given point in harvesting. The exact nature and extent of damage caused by weather conditions to a single crop is hard to estimate in advance. This difficulty is further compounded by differing soil types and climate conditions present within a particular growing area, especially with regard to farmers such as the Petitioners, who have their crops spread over multiple fields and farms. In mid-May of 1991, the Petitioners realized that there would be a crop shortage. The crop was damaged due to the weather-related factors mentioned above. The Petitioners notified Rubin that they expected their potato crop to fall short of expectations and that they would probably be unable to completely fill the contract with Rubin for the entire 50,000 CWT contracted for on December 22, 1990. In the meantime, before the 1991 planting season began, the Petitioners and Renee and Keith Kirker had entered into an agreement, whereby the Kirkers initiated their own farming operation on 30 acres of potato-growing land. The Kirkers leased that acreage from Diane Ross and received operating assistance from the Petitioners in the form of advances of all their operating costs, pursuant to an agreement between the Petitioners and the Kirkers, whereby the Petitioners would be repaid the estimated production costs for that 30-acre crop in the amount of $1,776.85 per acre, upon the sale of those 30 acres of potatoes. Potatoes are planted and harvested in the same sequence. Since the Petitioners assisted the Kirkers in planting their potatoes prior to the planting and completion of their own fields, the Petitioners borrowed some of the Kirkers' potatoes to fill their own contracts because those potatoes matured earlier, with the understanding that the Kirkers would be repaid in kind from the Petitioners' own fields during the remainder of the harvesting season. This is a common practice according to Ronald Brown, who testified for the Petitioners as an expert witness on farming practices. However, after the heavy rains in May of 1991, the Petitioners discovered that it would be necessary, in their view, to retain a portion of their last acreage in order to have potatoes to pay back the Kirkers for the potatoes borrowed. These potatoes would be sold by the Petitioners at market price, as agreed with the Kirkers. Upon discovering that their crop would not meet their contract obligations, the Petitioners attempted to prorate their remaining potatoes between their remaining contract customers in what they considered a fair and reasonable manner. On behalf of the Kirkers, the potatoes allocated for repayment to them were offered to Rubin, who, through its President, Mr. Rubin, declined to purchase them at the market price at which they were offered (higher than the contract price). The Petitioners' expert, Ronald Brown, established that, based upon accepted growers practices and his experience in the Hastings area, the Petitioners should have anticipated the yield for their 1991 crop at no more than 280 CWT per acre for the Petitioners' 430 acres (30 acres of which was the Kirkers' land). It is customary farming practice in the area, according to Brown, to enter into contracts for no more than 80% of the maximum anticipated yield of potatoes. The anticipated yield on the entire 430 acres of the Petitioners' and the Kirkers' land was, therefore, 120,400 CWT of potatoes. The principle of contracting no more than 80% of a maximum anticipated yield is designed to protect contracting parties in the event a smaller than anticipated yield occurs. A 280 CWT per acre yield is the generally-accepted yield amount under good growing conditions, according to Mr. Brown. The year before, the Petitioners had produced a total yield of 133,000 CWT on only 400 acres. The Petitioners entered into a total of six separate contracts for delivery of a total of 116,650 CWT of potatoes out of a reasonably anticipated maximum yield for the 430 acres of only 120,400 CWT. Thus, the Petitioners contracted 97% of the customary, accepted, anticipated maximum yield for the 430 acres for 1991. Thirty (30) of those acres, however, represent the potatoes which the Petitioners were obligated to the Kirkers to sell on their behalf at market price, rather than contract price. In spite of the fact that the Petitioners contracted 97% of the accepted, projected crop yield for 430 acres, the Petitioners, in fact, produced 117,000 CWT (approximate) on those 430 acres. Therefore, had they not diverted a certain amount of the crop to open market sales, they could have met their 116,650 CWT contractual obligations to the six contracting parties, including Rubin. It is also true, however, that that 117,000 CWT actual yield included the 30 acres of potatoes which the Petitioners were separately obligated to sell at open market price to repay the Kirkers. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioners had contracted 97% of the commonly-accepted, projected maximum yield, the Petitioners diverted 10,301.6 CWT of the 1991 crop on the entire 430 acres from contract sales to open market sales at much higher prices. Of those open market sales, 2,789.5 CWT were sold at market price after the last contract sales were made to Rubin. Had the Petitioners sold the entire 10,301.6 CWT of potatoes on contract, instead of at open market, all of the Petitioners' contractual requirements could have been met, including the contract with Rubin, although they would not then have been able to meet their obligations to the Kirkers. Based upon the above Findings of Fact supported by competent evidence, it is found that the preponderant evidence in this case does not support the Petitioners' contention that the Petitioners were unable to fulfill their contract obligation to Rubin due to an act of God. Although it is true that the Petitioners established that poor weather conditions, coupled with the absence of the ability to use the pesticide "Temik", had a deleterious effect on their crop production. The record shows that in spite of this, the Petitioners had the ability to fulfill their contract with Rubin if only approximately 5,000 CWT of the 10,301.6 CWT of potatoes sold on the open market had instead been allocated to the Petitioners' contract with Rubin to fill out the difference between the approximately 45,000 CWT honored under the contract and the contractual obligation to supply 50,000 CWT. The Petitioners produced on their own 400 acres 108,000 CWT. The remainder of the 117,582.5 CWT of potatoes from the total crop represented the potatoes grown on the Kirkers' 30 acres. Thus, the Kirkers' land produced approximately 8,600 CWT. The Petitioners supplied approximately 3,000 CWT under the separate, oral contract at market price and which were delivered to Rubin on April 29th, 30th, and May 1st (six loads at approximately 500 CWT per load). Then, the Petitioners sold the remainder of the total of 10,301.6 CWT of the entire Pacetti/Kirker crop or approximately 7,301.6 CWT on open market sales to others. The remainder of the 108,000 CWT grown on the Petitioners' own 400 acres, not sold to Rubin under the contract of December 22, 1990 or under the oral contract of April 25, 1991 (the six loads at market), were contracted out to other buyers. The ultimate effect of these contracts was that the Petitioners had contracted for 116,650 CWT. Thus, the Petitioners had imprudently contracted approximately 97% of the accepted, projected crop yield of 120,400 CWT, knowing that they were obligated to sell the Kirkers 8,600 or so CWT at market price and not on contract. Thus, the Petitioners clearly over- contracted the crop yield which they reasonably should have expected on the total 430 acres under the generally-accepted method of calculation of crop yield, under good growing conditions, of 280 CWT per acre, established by expert witness, Brown. This over-contracting practice, together with selling an excess amount of potatoes at market price (over and above those sold at market by the separate, oral contract with Rubin at the initial part of the harvesting season), is what actually prevented the Petitioners from fulfilling Rubin's contract of 50,000 CWT, rather than an act of God, predetermined condition for claiming impossibility of performance on that contract due to the above- described weather conditions. Even though the Petitioners were obligated to sell the Kirkers' entire 30 acres of yield, approximately 8,600 CWT, at market price, the Petitioners would still have had enough potatoes, even with their less-than-expected yield of 108,000 CWT represented by their own 400 acres, to have filled out the Rubin contract if they had not contracted out so many potatoes to other contracting buyers and had not sold as many potatoes at market price off contract as, indeed, they sold. Since the act of God condition is not what prevented the Petitioners from filling the written contract with Rubin for 50,000 CWT, it is clear that the Petitioners thus breached that contract. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the written contract with Rubin was entered into before any of the other contracts for the potato crop in question. The two contracts with Rubin are, however, separate contracts. The Petitioners established that there was a separate oral agreement entered into on April 25th between the Petitioners and Rubin and that the consideration flowing from the Petitioners to Mr. Rubin was that he needed the six loads of potatoes on short notice delivered on specific dates, April 29th, 30th, and May 1st, for which he was willing, therefore, to pay the $19.50 market price, knowing that it was for other potatoes that he contracted at $6.00. The Petitioners performed by providing the loads of potatoes when he wanted them and he paid for them in full. Thus, that contract was executed by consideration passing from each party to the other, and the contract was completed. The written contract with Rubin dated December 22, 1990 for the 50,000 CWT was the contract which the Petitioners breached for the above-found reasons. Rubin would, therefore, be entitled to damages for that breach based upon the facts proven in this case. There is no counterclaim or other action pending in this forum by Rubin against the Petitioners, however. Consequently, any damages proven by the breach of the written contract can only, at best, be applied against the amount due and owing the Petitioners for the billed, but unpaid, loads; that is, against the amount in controversy of $40,015.20. Rubin, however, has not produced any evidence to show what his damages might be. The record establishes, as found above, that, of the 48,361 CWT of potatoes delivered to Rubin, approximately 3,000 of which were delivered under the separate oral contract for six loads, Rubin only received approximately 45,000 CWT under the 50,000 CWT written contract. Thus, Rubin would appear to be entitled to damages caused by failing to get the last approximately 5,000 CWT of potatoes. The record, however, does not establish what those damages might be because it is not established whether Rubin had to purchase potatoes from another source at a higher price to meet the remainder of the 50,000 CWT amount, or, conversely, whether Rubin was able to purchase them from another source at a lower price than the $6.00 per CWT contract price, so that Rubin would actually benefit by the Petitioners' breach of that contract. Neither does the record reflect another possible scenario whereby Rubin might have simply accepted the approximate 5,000 CWT shortage and simply lost customers and potential profits represented by that amount of potatoes, or, finally, whether he simply did not purchase the shortage of 5,000 CWT from another source and had no missed sales for that amount of potatoes anyway and, therefore, no loss and no damage. The record simply does not reflect what Rubin's damages might have been because of the shortage under the written contract deliveries. In any event, the record evidence establishes that the oral contract was fully performed, with consideration flowing to each of the parties and that those potatoes were fully paid for at the market price. Then, the Petitioners delivered the written contract loads at $6.00 per CWT to Rubin represented by the claimed $40,015.00. That remains unpaid by Rubin. Rubin is obligated to pay that amount because Rubin was obligated to, and received those potatoes at the $6.00 contract price. Rubin would then appear to be entitled to claim damages if, indeed, any were suffered, for the breach of that written contract by the Petitioners' failure to supply the last (approximate) 5,000 CWT due Rubin under that contract. That resolution of their dispute, however, cannot be performed in this forum because of insufficient evidence, as delineated above, and remains to be resolved by another action by Rubin in another forum.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondents, Jack Rubin & Son, Inc. and Continental Casualty Co., Inc. be found jointly and severally liable for payment of $40,015.20 to the Petitioners for potatoes delivered to the Respondent, Jack Rubin & Son, Inc., for which payment has not yet been made. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-548A Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter because the evidence establishes that 30 acres of potatoes belonged to the Kirkers even though Pacetti Farms was responsible for all operations with regard to planting and harvesting those 30 acres, furnishing costs, operational expertise, equipment and labor as an advance against the Kirkers' crop sale. 2-5. Accepted, except that it is not found that the entire 430 acres of potatoes were the Petitioners' potatoes. 30 acres of potatoes belonged to the Kirkers. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence, to the extent that the 97% of the accepted projected crop yield contracted for by the Petitioners represents an inclusion of the 30 acres of the Kirkers' potatoes in that percentage of crop yield projection. This is erroneous because the 30 acres were the Kirkers' potatoes which the Petitioners were handling for them. Accepted in concept, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 John Michael Traynor, Esquire Charles E. Pellicer, Esquire 28 Cordova Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 C. Holt Smith, III, Esquire 3100 University Boulevard So. Suite 101 Jacksonville, FL 32016
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent S & G Sales, Inc., owes money to Petitioner in connection with the purchase of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner produces agricultural products in Naples, Florida. Petitioner and Respondent S & G Sales, Inc. (Respondent) entered into an agreement in which Respondent would market Petitioner's pickles for the best available price. However, the agreement did not require Respondent to sell the pickles only for market price. The agreement required only that Respondent use its best efforts in marketing the pickles. In April and May 1998, Petitioner delivered to Respondent numerous shipments of pickles pursuant to the parties' agreement. Quality and sizing problems in the pickles prevented Respondent from being able to obtain market price. Pickles are perishable. They can go from acceptable quality to rotten in as little as two days. Respondent's representative weekly informed Petitioner's representative of the below-market prices that he was obtaining for the pickles. The record is somewhat confusing because Petitioner seeks additional payment for some, but not all, shipments of pickles, and Respondent made periodic advances for all the pickle shipments plus shipments of squash also. However, the evidence is clear that Respondent was required to get only the best available price and, due to quality and size problems did so. The evidence is also clear that Respondent paid at least as much as it owed Petitioner for the pickle shipments covered in the present claim.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 25th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph Monahan New York Surety Company 123 William Street New York, New York 10038-3804 Juan Tello Qualified Representative Tello Farms, Inc. Post Office Box 8154 Naples, Florida 34101-8154 Carolann A. Swanson Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, the following facts are found: On April 16, 1982, through Florida Produce Brokers, Petitioner sold two shipments of cabbage to Respond dent C & B, to be shipped directly from the growing field to a consumer in Canada (785 crates) and to the United States Army in Chicago (200 crates). The 200 crates are not a part of this claim. All further reference to cabbage and crates, unless specifically identified differently refers to the 785 crates of U.S. #1 green cabbage destined for Canada M. T. Fruit, Inc., of St. Laurent, Quebec, Canada (M.T.). A truck was contracted for by M.T. through O. G. Sheppard Truck Brokers. On April 16, 1982, the 785 crates were loaded on the truck during the period 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. at the grower's field, Povie Farm, near Hastings, Florida. No ice was put aboard the truck at this time. Petitioner was not presented at the loading. The shipment was to be an f.o.b. origin shipment which places the responsibility for loading and icing on the purchaser. The truck was refrigerated, and the delivery order given in writing by Petitioner to the truck driver after loading contained the instructions: "Set unit 38 degrees Keep top iced to destination." The crates in which the cabbage was packed were marked: "Charleston County Wholesale Vegetable Market Inc. Hastings, Florida. Produce of U.S.A." and were marked: "1 3/4 bushel in volume." The inspection report made by D. B. Williams, inspector of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, at the time of loading reflected that the defects in the cabbage were within tolerance with no decay showing and the temperature control unit of the truck was operating. The inspection report also indicated the shipment met Canadian import requirements. At the time of the purchase and until the truck was loaded and back at Petitioner's office for billing out, Petitioner's representative, Mr. Limehouse, did not know for where the shipment was destined. By the time he found out, after the load was on board the truck, it would have been impossible to mark the crates with weight unless they were all unloaded from the truck, even if it were known that was required. The comments on the inspection regarding Canadian import requirements are placed on every shipment whether destined for Canada or not. Mr. Limehouse did not receive any indication anything was wrong with the shipment until several days later when he was called by Mr. Readding, a representative of C & B, and told that the shipment had been detained in Canada because the crates were not properly marked. At this point, he told Mr. Readding to tell the driver to get a crayon and mark the boxes. He did not receive any trouble sheets on this shipment such as he received on the Chicago shipment, although at least one was made out but, through a mixup in C & B's office, not sent. Unknown to all parties, the Canadian requirements had been changed to require that instead of a certification as to the volume of the container, as had been acceptable in the past, the weight of each container was now required to be marked on it. This was not known to the Department of Agriculture inspector at the time he made his inspection on April 16, 1982. Notwithstanding this, the shipment passed through Canadian customs at the border without any difficulty and arrived at M.T.'s facility early in the morning of April 19. Unloading began about 8:30 a.m.; and when approximately 400 crates had been off-loaded from the truck, M.T. found some of the cabbage was decayed. At this point, it was also noticed that the boxes did not show the weight as required by Canadian law, and M.T. requested an inspection by Canadian authorities. This reflected that: (1) the condition of the vehicle was clean; (2) those crates not yet unloaded were piled six high and five or seven wide in the truck in good order and properly packed; and (3) the condition of the cabbage was: WRAPPER LEAVES: 3 percent slimy decay affecting from 1 to 2 leaves, mostly 2 leaves. 16 percent slimy decay at butt end, ranging from nil to 57 percent. No decay in evidence on head leaves. The certificate also reflected that the inspection had been "requested for and certificate restricted to condition only," but the lot was placed under detention because of a lack of markings. The cabbage was released the following day from M.T.'s warehouse when the weight was placed on the crates. Petitioner did not receive any payment for the cabbage until after it filed its first claim with the Florida Department of Agriculture. Thereafter, in July, 1982, it received C & B's check in the amount of $1,350, which was held without being deposited immediately since it did not satisfy the obligation. The second complaint was filed in September, 1982; and late that month, Petitioner received C & B's second check, this one in the amount of $4,223.50. This latter check bore the notation "#939, Final Payment." The figure "#939" reflects the number on Petitioner's invoice on which the amount allegedly due was billed to C & B. The two checks total $5,573.50, a sum $1,570 less than the amount ultimately billed to C & B by Petitioner for the cabbage--$7,143.50. Petitioner also filed a claim under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of the United States and forwarded the two checks referenced above as exhibits to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. On November 2, 1982, Petitioner was notified by the Assistant Chief, Regulatory Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Department of Agriculture (U.S.), that since a claim had also been filed with the State of Florida, they would not process it, and the checks were returned. The notice also bore the caveat that under federal law, deposit of the checks would constitute an accord and satisfaction of the dispute and that before depositing the checks, Petitioner should insure that a similar result would not occur under Florida law. However, because Mr. Limehouse felt that if the checks were not soon deposited, they might be cancelled by C & B; on November 12, 1982, both checks were deposited to Petitioner's account. Prior to that time, however, on September 7, 1982, Respondent C & B invoiced M.T. for $5,691.25 net for the 785 crates of cabbage shipped f.o.b. This invoice shows a credit adjustment of $2 per crate for the crates held in detention by Canadian officials because the boxes were improperly marked and further shows C & B's comment that any loss because cabbage arrived uniced and heated will be their (M.T.`s) responsibility to collect from the truck broker. Respondent C & B was paid in full by M.T. the amount claimed, $5,691.25, which was the net amount due after deducting the adjustment but adding in a 15 cents per crate brokerage. The amount claimed as owing by Petitioner is $1,570.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter an order finding that Petitioner is due the amount of $1,570 from the sale of the agricultural products which were the subject of this administrative proceeding. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 31st day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. W. Lawton Limehouse President Charleston County Wholesale Vegetable Market, Inc. Post Office Box 131 Hastings, Florida 32045 Michael J. Grindstaff, Esquire Allen, Mathews & Baker 257 South East Avenue E Belle Glade, Florida 33430 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Reliance Insurance Company Four Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 The Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Glenn A. Bissett Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether, under the provisions of sections 604.15 - 604.34, Florida Statutes, Lester Towell Distributors, Inc., is entitled to recover $2,098 for agricultural products ordered by and delivered to VBJ Packing, Inc
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. Lester Towell is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. VBJ is a dealer in Florida-grown agricultural products. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of extra-large green bell peppers. Lester Towell delivered 200 boxes of such peppers to VBJ on May 23, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 63 boxes of peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 137 boxes from producer Thomas Produce, in Boca Raton, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. On May 22, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of yellow corn. Lester Towell delivered 100 boxes of such corn to VBJ on May 24, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 100 boxes of corn from producer Wilkinson-Cooper, in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for this producer; it purchased the products outright. On May 24, 1995, VBJ placed an order with Lester Towell to purchase a quantity of jalapeno peppers, white corn, and red radishes. Lester Towell delivered two boxes of jalapeno peppers, 26 boxes of white corn, and 20 boxes of red radishes to VBJ on May 25, 1995. To fill this order, Lester Towell purchased 2 boxes of jalapeno peppers from producer Ott Farms, Inc., in Estero, Florida, and 26 boxes of white corn and 20 boxes of red radishes from producer American Growers in Belle Glade, Florida. Lester Towell did not act as agent for these producers; it purchased the products outright. Lester Towell filed its complaint with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department") pursuant to the provisions of section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes, because VBJ did not pay for the products identified above. There is, however, no evidence to establish that Lester Towell was a producer or the agent or representative of a producer with respect to the products for which it seeks payment. It is, therefore, not a "person" entitled to file a complaint with the Department against VBJ and its surety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the complaint of Lester Towell Distributors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 3nd day of July 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July 1996
The Issue Whether Respondents are indebted to Petitioner for 35 boxes of beans sold by Petitioner to Respondent, Weis-Buy Services, Inc., and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Weis-Buy Services, Inc., is a dealer in agricultural products licensed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Respondent, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company of Maryland acts as surety for Weis-Buy. On January 5, 1995, Mark A. Underwood, Vice President of the Petitioner, sold to Respondent, Weis-Buy Services, Inc., 35 boxes of beans. This sale was the result of the order placed by Hank Douglas, a duly authorized employee of Weis-Buy. The price agreed to by the Petitioner and Weis-Buy was $28.55 per box, for a total purchase price of $999.25. The beans sold by Petitioner to Weis-Buy had been purchased by Petitioner from another grower, Suncoast Farms. There was no written contract between Petitioner and Suncoast or between Petitioner and Weis-Buy. Weis-Buy took delivery of the beans at Petitioner's dock in Homestead, Florida, on January 5, 1995. The beans were loaded into a refrigerated truck in the employ of Weis- Buy on January 5, 1995. From Homestead, the truck drove to Belle Glade, Florida, a trip of approximately 3.5 hours. In Belle Glade, the truck picked up a load of radishes. The truck then went to Immokalee, Florida, where it picked up a quantity of squash. The following day, the truck picked up a load of cherry tomatoes. On January 9, 1995, the beans were inspected by a federal inspector in Columbus, Ohio. 1/ The inspector noted on his inspection report that the beans showed evidence of freeze damage that was ". . . so located as to indicate freezing injury occurred after packing but not at present location". The inspection report noted that the beans were to be dumped. The parties disagree as to when the freeze damage to the beans occurred. Because Weis-Buy believes that the freeze damage occurred before it took delivery of the beans, it has refused to pay Petitioner for the 35 boxes of beans. The reason Weis-Buy believes that the freeze damage occurred before the beans were loaded onto the truck is because the other vegetables that were transported by the refrigerated truck were not damaged. Partly because the beans had been purchased from another grower, Mr. Underwood inspected the beans immediately prior to their being loaded onto Weis- Buy's truck. Based on his testimony, it is found that there was no freeze damage to the beans when they were loaded on Weis-Buy's truck on January 5, 1995. It is found that the freeze damage to the beans revealed by the federal inspection on January 9, 1995, occurred after the beans had been delivered to Weis-Buy. Consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner fulfilled its obligations under the verbal contract and is entitled to be paid the sum of $999.25.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions contained herein, that finds Respondent Weis-Buy Services, Inc., is indebted to Petitioners in the amount of $999.25, directs Weis-Buy Services, Inc., to make payment to Petitioner in the amount of $999.25 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, and provides that if payment in full of this $999.25 indebtedness is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company of Maryland, as Weis-Buy's surety. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1996.
The Issue Did Respondent Williams fail to make an accounting for and payment to Petitioner for the proceeds of agricultural products purchased by Ray Gene Williams d/b/a Williams Produce Company?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Six L's grows watermelons in Collier County, Florida. It is therefore a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida. Respondent Ray Gene Williams d/b/a Williams Produce Company is a dealer in agricultural products who engages in business in Florida. Respondent Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company is the surety for a bond posted by Respondent Williams to insure compliance with Section 604.20, Florida Statutes (1979). On May 26, 1980, Six L's sold 46,700 pounds of field run, crimson sweet, watermelons to Respondent Williams at a price of 5 1/2 cents per pound for a total cost of $2,568.50. The sale was negotiated between Mr. Charles Weisinger, a salesman for Six L's, and Mr. Larry DiMaria. Mr. DiMaria at that time was a purchasing agent for Respondent Williams. They agreed that the sale would be F.O.B. at Immokalee, Florida. On May 26, 1980 a truck under contract to Respondent Williams was loaded with 46,700 pounds of crimson sweet field run watermelons from the farm of Petitioner Six L's. The weight was verified by the Immokalee State Farmer's Market at 6:59 p.m., May 26, 1980. At that time Mr. DiMaria inspected the watermelons and accepted them on behalf of Respondent Williams. On the following day, May 27, 1980, Mr. DiMaria made payment for the watermelons by issuing check #465 drawn on the account of Williams Farms in the amount of $2,568.50, payable to Six L's Packing Company. Before Six L's could collect on the check, payment was stopped by Respondent Williams, and no payment for the watermelons has since been made by either Respondent. The final hearing in this case was initially noticed for December 4, 1980. At the request of Respondent Williams and with the agreement of Six L's it was continued to a later date. The final hearing was rescheduled for May 11, 1981 in Fort Myers, Florida at 10:00 a.m. At that time neither Respondent made an appearance. In order to give them time to appear the hearing was recessed until 10:30 a.m. At that time it resumed and was concluded at 11:30 a.m. with still no appearance by either Respondent. To the knowledge of the undersigned no attempt was made by the Respondents to request a continuance or otherwise explain their failure to appear.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding Ray Gene Williams d/b/a Williams Produce Company indebted to Six L's Packing Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,568.50. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1981.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to $7,433.00, or any part thereof, from Respondent on the basis of a brokered sale of watermelons?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner Terry McCully was a first-year independent grower of Sangria watermelons in Jasper, Florida. Respondent is a professional broker of produce. On June 13, 1999, Petitioner and Nolan Mancil, known to Petitioner as a watermelon buyer from Georgia representing Respondent, "walked" Petitioner's sole field. On June 13, 1999, Petitioner and Mr. Mancil agreed that Respondent would pay 10¢ per pound for watermelons from Petitioner's sole field of watermelons. However, Petitioner also understood that ultimately, his payment would be based on whatever the "market price" was, per load. Petitioner had no prior experience with how "market price" is defined or determined. At all times material, Nolan Mancil was acting as an agent of Respondent, and regardless of the extent of the authority actually authorized by Respondent, Mr. Mancil had, with Respondent's concurrence, apparent authority for all agreements reached with Petitioner. According to Respondent's President, Mr. Ward, the standard in the industry is that no value is placed on an agricultural commodity until a final price is determined with the ultimate consumer/retailer. Respondent produced business records tracking each of the six loads harvested from Petitioner's field (including the four loads in dispute) and showing the accepted weights for each load. According to Mr. Mancil, "market price" is "zero," unless some amount is paid by the retailer to the broker on delivery and the amount paid on delivery constitutes "the market price." He denied ever telling Petitioner that their oral contract would use the United States Department of Agriculture National Watermelon Report (USDA Report) to specifically set a daily market price, although he admitted that at a later point in time, under changed conditions (see Finding of Fact No. 19) he had told Petitioner that the USDA Daily Report could be the maximum price. Petitioner conceded that he received the USDA Report from the Department of Agriculture Extension Agent only after a dispute arose and Petitioner had begun to prepare his claim. The undersigned infers therefrom that Petitioner was only aware of this methodology of setting a market price "after the fact." On Monday, June 14, 1999, Nolan Mancil's harvesters and graders entered Petitioner's field. Petitioner agreed to pay for the harvesting by Respondent's deduction of harvesting costs from each load after sale to the ultimate buyer, but at this point Petitioner also expected Respondent to pay him by the load, each load, immediately after sale at the ultimate point of sale (FOB). On Tuesday, June 15, 1999, trucks hired by Mr. Mancil and/or Respondent began removing watermelons from Petitioner's field. On that day, Mr. Mancil indicated that the watermelons being loaded were worth only 8-1/2¢ per pound. Petitioner agreed to the change in the amount to be paid. At some point, Petitioner accommodated Mr. Mancil by getting a truck, driver, and loaders, and by feeding Mr. Mancil's crew members. Petitioner seeks no reimbursement for these accommodations. Respondent took two truckloads away on June 15, 1999. Load #3664 of 46,340 pounds "shipped weight" and 45,830 pounds "accepted weight" were brokered by Respondent to a retailer at 8¢ per pound. Load #3692 of 48,060 shipped weight and 43,392 pounds accepted weight were brokered to a retailer at 9¢ per pound. Respondent's business records show that on the first (undisputed) load, the sale to a retailer was contracted by Respondent at 8¢ per pound, but when the time came to settle- up, the payment was made by Respondent's retail customer at the small melon size (13-plus pounds), not at the medium or large melon size. Respondent's business records further show that the second (undisputed) load was contracted at 9¢ per pound but was ultimately paid-out at the average weight per melon of 15.4 pounds instead of at 19.2 pounds per melon, after an initial rejection by the first buyer. No brokerage fee was imposed by Respondent on either of these undisputed loads, and on each of these loads, Respondent suffered a substantial loss. These losses were not passed on to Petitioner due to their "immediate cash payment" arrangement. Respondent immediately paid Petitioner for both loads at the agreed rate of 8-1/2¢ per pound, less harvesting costs and mandatory government fee. Petitioner does not dispute deduction of the government fee from the first two loads. Indeed, Petitioner's claim does not address the amount, method, or appropriateness of Respondent's payment to Petitioner for these first two loads. Petitioner's claim only addresses the last four loads harvested after June 15, 1999. After the first two loads, Mr. Mancil informed Petitioner that Respondent could no longer pay Petitioner in cash immediately after each load, but would henceforth pay Petitioner within 30 days. There is no dispute that Petitioner reluctantly agreed to this change in the timing of payment. Mr. Mancil claimed that he told Petitioner, either beginning with the third load or sometime between the third and fourth loads, that the USDA Report's daily price would be the highest price Petitioner could be paid by Respondent. According to Mr. Ward, over the four loads in dispute, the price received by Respondent from retailers was 7¢ per pound adjusted downward due to market conditions such as watermelon size being less than expected, smaller watermelons being in less demand, and the watermelons being in poor condition when accepted by the retailer(s). According to Mr. Ward, the net weight of a load is determined by deducting the truck's empty weight from the loaded weight of the truck; then the melons in the truck are counted, and that count is divided into the net weight, to get the average weight per melon. Petitioner maintained that he was never advised by Mr. Ward or Mr. Mancil that the watermelons in the last four loads were the wrong size or that many melons were not good. Mr. Mancil stated that he believed he had indicated to Petitioner that the watermelons in the last four truckloads were actually smaller than the size anticipated when the deal was struck on June 13, 1999, and that the watermelons were of poorer quality. He conceded that he was not sure Petitioner had understood him. There is no dispute that Petitioner's field was rather overgrown or that watermelons could be harvested despite this overgrowth. The overgrowth could have obscured the size and condition of the watermelons until after harvest. After the sixth load, neither Respondent nor Mr. Mancil sent any more trucks. There was never an agreement that Respondent would buy all the watermelons in Petitioner's field. Petitioner found it necessary to obtain trucks himself to haul away and dump the remaining watermelons which were rotting in his field. He seeks no reimbursement for this expense. Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I also find that the watermelons in the last four loads were smaller and inferior in quality to what had been expected. On June 16, 1999, 42,140 pounds shipped weight of watermelons were loaded by Respondent from Petitioner's field in Load #3691. Petitioner is claiming 7¢ per pound on the basis of a USDA Report on every pound for $2,879.00, less harvesting costs of $781.00 for $2,098.00. On June 17, 1999, 43,500 shipped weight of watermelons were loaded by Respondent from Petitioner's field in Load #3685. Petitioner is claiming 6¢ per pound on the basis of a USDA Report for every pound for $2,610.00, less harvesting costs of $826.00 for $1,784.00. The same day, 43,620 shipped weight of watermelons were loaded by Respondent from Petitioner's field in Load #3694. Petitioner is claiming 6¢ per pound on the basis of a USDA Report for every pound for $2,617.20, less harvesting costs of $830.00 for $1,787.20. Either on June 20, 21, or 22, 1999 (the dates on exhibits conflict), 43,000 shipped weight of watermelons were loaded by Respondent from Petitioner's field in Load #3702. Petitioner is claiming 6¢ per pound on the basis of a USDA Report for every pound less harvesting costs of $817.00 for $1,763.00. Petitioner bases the price per pound that he is claiming on his Exhibit P-6, the USDA Reports for June 17-18, and 21, 1999. He did not select from those reports the price per largest average weight of Sangria watermelon, but selected the middle or lowest average weight of "other red meat varieties." Except for June 21, 1999, this calculation gives Respondent the benefit of the doubt as to cents per pound for average market price on the respective USDA Reports, but in light of all the other evidence it is not an accurate method of calculating the true market price for the four disputed loads. Although Petitioner considers payment on the first two (undisputed) loads based on accepted weight to be within the parties' agreement and correct, he has not made his calculations of claim on the accepted weight of any of the last four (disputed) loads. Petitioner's calculations of claim also have not addressed the mandatory government fee for any of the last four (disputed) loads, although he considers payment on the first two, (undisputed) loads, for which Respondent deducted the mandatory fee, to be within the parties' agreement and correct. According to Respondent's business records for the four loads shipped after the Mancil-Petitioner re-negotiations of price per pound and discussion on maximum market pricing, these disputed loads were sold to retailers as follows: On June 16, 1999, Load #3691 had a shipped weight of 41,140 pounds and accepted weight of 39,940 pounds. The sale price was $0.055 per pound. The sale amount was $2,196.70. The government fee was $7.99. The harvesting cost was $781.00. A brokerage fee of $399.40 was subtracted, and Respondent's debt to Petitioner was calculated as $1,008.31. On June 17, 1999, Load #3685 had a shipped weight of 43,500 pounds and an accepted weight of 43,280 pounds. The watermelons were originally contracted for retail sale at $.0635 per pound but were refused by the first retailer as undersized. The second, alternative retailer bought these watermelons at a smaller-size market price for melons averaging 18 pounds, instead of 19.5- pound melons, and also made some returns of bad watermelons, so that the sale amount ended-up as $973.80, less a $8.66 government fee, less $826.00 for harvesting, less $216.40 brokerage fee, so that even Petitioner lost $77.26 on the deal. Also on June 17, 1999, Load #3694 had a shipped weight of 43,620 pounds and an accepted weight of 42,848 pounds. The contract sale had been for watermelons averaging 19.3 pounds, and the average size turned to out to be 16.7 pounds, and some of these melons were returned. The ultimate sale amount was $1,692.50, less a government fee of $8.72, less harvesting costs of $830.00, less brokerage fee of $321.36, with Respondent owing Petitioner $532.42. Finally, on or about June 22, 1999, the final load, #3702, had a shipped weight of 43,000 pounds, and accepted weight of 41,157 pounds, for a sale amount of $832.00; a government fee of $8.60; harvesting costs of $817.00; brokerage fee of $200.00; and amount due to Petitioner of $193.60. Again, the contract price of 6¢ from the retailer had been negotiated on melons in good condition of an average weight of 19.6 pounds, and the watermelons actually delivered by Respondent from Petitioner's field averaged 16.8 pounds, and many melons were returned to Respondent based on lack of quality. On the foregoing calculations, Respondent admits to owing Petitioner $1,269.87, rather than the $7,433.00 claimed by Petitioner's calculations. Neither party presented any evidence of an agreement to deduct a brokerage fee or how a brokerage fee was to be calculated. No brokerage fee was deducted by Respondent for the first two loads which are not in dispute, but Respondent actually suffered a loss on those loads which was not passed on to Petitioner (See Finding of Fact No. 14). For the last four loads, the only loads in dispute and the only loads for which a brokerage fee was deducted, the brokerage fee constitutes the only profit made by Respondent on the entire six-load transaction.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture enter a final order requiring Respondent Growers Marketing Service, Inc. to pay Petitioner $1,269.87, plus interest, if any, to be calculated by the Department, and requiring that if Growers Marketing Service, Inc., does not pay the amount specified within 30 days of the final order that its surety, Preferred National Insurance Company, shall be liable to Petitioner for the full amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 3rd day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry McCully 3245 Northwest 30th Lane Jennings, Florida 33806 William R. Ward, Jr., President Growers Marketing Service, Inc. Post Office Box 2595 Lakeland, Florida 33806 Preferred National Insurance Company Post Office Box 407003 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., and its surety, Western Surety Company, are liable for funds due to Petitioner from the sale of agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Petitioner operates a nursery supply company that produces trees, plants, and other landscaping supplies at a location in Bunnell, Florida. Respondent is a dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. At the time of the transactions in question, Respondent was a licensed dealer in agricultural products supported by a surety bond provided by Western Surety Company. This matter arose over a Producer Complaint filed by Petitioner on June 24, 2005, in which it alleged that Respondent owed $20,512.97, based upon five invoices for nursery goods delivered to various job sites where Respondent was providing landscaping services. The five invoices set forth in the original Producer Complaint are as follows: Date of Sale Invoice # Amount Dec. 28, 2004 64679 $2,884.72 Jan. 11, 2005 64828 3,878.75 Jan. 11, 2005 64829 1,926.00 Feb. 1, 2005 65229 2,086.50 Feb. 3, 2005 65127 9,737.00 Petitioner later amended its Complaint to withdraw its claims under Invoice Nos. 65229 and 65127, as untimely filed, resulting in an amended amount due of $8,689.47. Respondent filed a Response to the Producer Complaint on August 15, 2005, admitting the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828, totaling $6,763.47, and denying the amount claimed in Invoice No. 64829, $1,926.00, as never having been filled, resulting in Respondent's using another vendor to fill the order. Respondent admitted the amounts due under Invoice Nos. 64679 and 64828; therefore, no further discussion is necessary for those items, except to note that Delivery Receipt No. 17751, relating to Invoice No. 64828 contains the note "Reject 1 Live Oak." Therefore, the amount of Invoice No. 64828 must be reduced by $214.00 ($200 for the tree and 7 percent Florida Sales Tax). With respect to Invoice No. 64829, however, Petitioner produced at hearing only an unsigned invoice without either a sales order or a receipt for delivery of goods, as was its custom concerning deliveries of nursery goods. Accordingly, Petitioner provided no proof that the order under Invoice No. 64829 was actually delivered to Respondent. Respondent and its surety, Western Surety Company, currently owe Petitioner $2,884.72 under Invoice No. 64679, and $3,664.75 under Invoice No. 64828, for a total amount owed of $6,549.47.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc., or its surety, Respondent, Western Surety Company, to pay Petitioner $6,549.47 for unpaid invoices. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 25th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher E. Green, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Marketing 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Joseph Robbins, Jr. Greenblades of Central Florida, Inc. 11025 Southeast Highway 42 Summerfield, Florida 34491 Tom Snyder Western Surety Company Post Office Box 5077 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5077 Donald M. DuMond Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 2970 Hartley Road, Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Tom Robinson Skinner Nurseries, Inc. 13000 State Road 11 Bunnell, Florida 32110 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner of Agriculture 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
The Issue Has Respondent Kelly Marinaro, d/b/a Sunny Fresh Citrus Export and Sales Company (Sunny) paid Petitioner Frances A. Oakes and Daniel Holder, d/b/a Oakes Produce Company (Oakes) in full for watermelons (melons) purchased from Oakes during the 1996 melon season which are represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order numbers 93981/4051, 93905/4063, 93921/4064, 94006/4066, and 93941/4096?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Oakes was in the business of growing and selling "agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes, and was a "producer" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. Melons come within the definition of "agricultural products" as defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Sunny was licensed as a "dealer in agriculture products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Sunny was issued license number 831 by the Department, which is supported by bond number BND-262218 in the amount of $29,000, written by American, as surety, with an inception date of May 1, 1996, and an expiration date of April 30, 1997. The complaint was timely filed by Oakes in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes. Sometime before June 27, 1996, the parties entered into an oral agreement wherein Oakes would harvest and load melons onto trucks furnished by Sunny at locations specified by Oakes. The agreement provided that: (a) Oakes would guarantee the quality of the melons to be the quality required under a "good delivery" standard at the time of delivery to Sunny's customers, subject to any transit problems or delays in arrival at the customer's location; (b) Sunny would pay Oakes Produce 4.5 cents per pound for the melons loaded onto the trailers and delivered to Sunny's customers; (c) Sunny would be responsible for the cost of delivering the melons to its customers; and (d) settlement was to be made by Sunny within a reasonable time. Frances Oakes testified that Sunny agreed to pay 5 cents per pound for the load of melons represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order number 94006/4066. However, the more credible evidence is that the agreed upon price for this load of melons was 4.5 cents per pound. Likewise, Kelly Marinaro testified that it was agreed that if the melons did not met the agreed upon quality standard upon delivery to its customers that Oakes would be responsible for all cost of delivery, including freight. However, the more credible evidence is that this was not agreed upon and was not part of the oral agreement. Oakes did not advise Sunny that it would give Sunny "full market protection" on the melons, or that Sunny was to handle the melons "on account" for Oakes. The more credible evidence shows that the watermelons were purchased by Sunny with title to the melons passing to Sunny upon delivery to Sunny's customers and meeting the agreed upon quality standard. 8 Under the terms of the above oral agreement, Oakes loaded 9 loads of melons onto trucks furnished by Sunny that were shipped to Sunny's customers. Oakes alleged in the complaint that Sunny had failed to pay Oakes for 6 of the 9 loads and owed a balance of $9,521.36. However, at the beginning of the hearing, Oakes withdrew from the complaint the load of melons represented by Sunny Oakes/Oakes purchase order number 93924/4069 in the amount of $1,976.40 leaving an alleged balance owed to Oakes by Sunny of $7,544.96. The 5 loads of melons left in contention are the loads represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order numbers 93891/4051, 93905/4063, 93921/4064, 94006/4066, and 93941/4096, in the amounts of $1,778.66, $2,044.80, $1,859.40, $91.70, and $1,770,40, respectively. Sunny contends that the melons on the loads represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order numbers 93891/4051, 93905/4063, 93921/4064, and 93941/4096 arrived at their destination in a condition below the agreed upon quality standard which resulted in prices received by Sunny of less than the agreed upon price of 4.5 cents per pound. Based on this contention, Sunny deducted the freight, other applicable costs and its sales charge from the amount alleged to have been received for the melons represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order numbers 93905/4063, 93921/4064, and 93941/4096, which resulted in Oakes not receiving any payment from Sunny for those melons. In fact, each of the 3 loads of melons showed a negative balance which was charged against other loads with a positive balance. The price received by Sunny for the load of melons represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order number 93891/4051 resulted in a balance owed Oakes of $547.50 after deductions for freight and other charges. However, in making payment to Oakes, Sunny charged the negative balances of the loads represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order numbers 93905/4063, 93921/4064 and 93941/4096 against Sunny/Oakes purchase order number 93891/4051, which resulted in Oakes not receiving any payment for this load. 13 As to the load represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order number 94006/4066, Sunny paid Oakes $825.30, which represents 4.5 cents per pound for 18,340 pounds without any deduction for loads with negative balances. Oakes has been paid in full for this load. There was insufficient evidence to show that the melons represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order numbers 93891/4051, 93905/4063, 93921/4064, and 93941/4096 did not meet the agreed upon quality standard upon arrival at their destination. There was no dispute as to the weight of the melons. Sunny furnished Oakes trouble reports on the 4 loads of melons represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order numbers 93981/4051, 93905/4063, 93921/4064, and 93941/4096, indicating problems with the condition of the melons and that the loads would have to be "worked" in order to "move" the melons. Kelly Marinaro testified that either he or employees of Sunny had discussed at least 3 of these reports with Frances Oakes, and that he had authorized Sunny to do what was necessary to move the loads of melons. Frances Oakes testified that he had seen these trouble reports and had discussed at least some of them with either Kelly Marinaro or Sunny's employees. However, Frances Oakes further testified that he was not aware that there was a severe problem with the melons. The more credible evidence is that Kelly Marinaro or an employee of Sunny's discussed these trouble reports with Frances Oakes, and that Frances Oakes authorized Sunny to find someone to "work" the melons. In disposing of the melons, Sunny received less than the agreed upon price of 4.5 cents per pound. Therefore, Sunny deducted the freight, other applicable costs, and Sunny's sales charge which resulted in a negative balances of $81.84, $582.35, and $345.02 for loads represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order numbers 93905/4063, 93921/4064, and 93941/4096, respectively. There was a positive balance of $547.50 for the load of melons represented by Sunny/Oakes purchase order number 93891/4051. By check dated August 1, 1996, Sunny made an accounting to Oakes which included the loads of melons in dispute and others that were not in dispute. Each purchase order number was listed on the check stub with either a positive or negative amount. The check was in the amount of $4,413.34. This amount was calculated by adding positive amounts and subtracting negative amounts. This was clearly shown on the check stub which Oakes received. On the back of this check Kelly Marinaro had clearly printed "Troubled Settlements Payment In Full" Using its deposit stamp which was stamped directly beneath the language "Troubled Settlements Payment In Full," Oakes deposited this check.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order dismissing Oakes' complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commission of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Frances A. Oakes, pro se 2722 Edson Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33916 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, Florida 33806 Robert Walman Claims Management Services American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida 11222 Quail Roost Drive Miami, Florida 33157
