Crawford v. Gold Kist, Inc.

Citations: 614 F. Supp. 682; 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 333; 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18932Docket: 83-778-Civ-J-14

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida; June 13, 1985; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

L.C. Crawford, a farmer, filed an Amended Complaint against Gold Kist, Inc., alleging the sale of defective wheat seed, specifically Coker 747, which he purchased on November 23, 1981. The case, heard by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, involved claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, negligence, and breach of good faith obligation under relevant Florida statutes. The Court has jurisdiction due to complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $10,000. 

Crawford engaged in general farming since 1973 and purchased the seed from Gold Kist's Farmers' Mutual Exchange (FMX) after a conversation with employee Dale Dicks, who had social ties to Crawford. When Crawford ordered 150 bushels of Coker 797, Dicks informed him of the shortage and suggested Coker 747 as the only available option. The context of the sale occurred during a period of high demand for winter wheat in Florida, contributing to a shortage of available seed. The Court considered evidence from the trial, including exhibits, briefs, and witness testimonies, to make its findings and conclusions regarding the case.

The plaintiff in this case inquired about the Coker 747 wheat seed from Mr. Dicks, who assured him that Gold Kist only handled quality products. However, the plaintiff was not informed that Florida was outside the Coker 747's adaptation zone. Expert testimony from Dr. Harold Loden indicated that farmers typically rely on personal and peer experiences. The plaintiff, having farmed for eight years, was nonetheless inexperienced with wheat, as 1981 marked his first attempt. Prior to his purchase, he had researched wheat in trade journals, consulted with other farmers, and attended educational meetings by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FCES). 

At an FCES meeting, he received an Agronomy Facts publication, which did not endorse Coker 747 for Florida but noted successful yields in tests. The plaintiff was aware that Coker 747 was a late-maturing variety, unsuitable for Florida's double cropping system, based on information in the Agronomy Facts. Although he purchased the seed in November 1981, he delayed planting until after December 15 due to insufficient moisture, despite the recommended planting window of November 15 to December 15 for optimal yields. Planting late with a late-maturing variety like Coker 747 raised the risk of poor yields by at least 50% due to potential issues with vernalization, a critical process for wheat's reproductive growth that requires exposure to cool temperatures.

The plaintiff planted three wheat varieties—Coker 797, Coker 747, and Coker 762—across a 140-acre field, ensuring consistent cultural practices, soil types, and environmental conditions. While the Coker 797 and Coker 762 produced an average of over 43 bushels per acre, the Coker 747 failed to produce due to its inability to vernalize.

Dr. R.N. Barnett, a wheat specialist from the University of Florida, testified that the plaintiff's farming practices were suboptimal primarily due to variety selection and a late planting date, though the late planting could be justified if soil moisture was inadequate. On December 17, 1981, the plaintiff purchased an additional 125 bushels of Coker 747 wheat seed from FMX in Lake City, knowing it was the only variety available. Gold Kist, a seed distributor, offered Coker 747, a proprietary soft winter wheat developed by Coker Pedigreed Seed Company, but Florida is not within its recommended zone of adaptation, which extends 200-300 miles north of Union and Bradford County. Coker's zone of adaptation was established after extensive research confirming the variety's suitability for various regions, excluding coastal plains and Gulf Coast areas. While FCES conducts independent trials for seed suitability in Florida, it has never recommended Coker 747, although it had not designated it as unsuitable at the time of sale. Prior to 1981, Coker 747 had been cultivated in Florida, yielding economically, with reported averages of 66.2 bushels per acre when planted early and 40.6 bushels when planted late. Test results showed that wheat planted early in the 1981-82 season yielded 42 bushels per acre. Mr. Henderson, a farmer, also noted strong yields from Coker 747 during the 1980-81 season.

Coker 747 wheat, planted by the plaintiff on December 18, 1981, yielded only 6.7 bushels, which Dr. Barnett deemed a crop failure. Dr. Harold Loden, an expert in plant genetics, indicated that farmers often depend on personal and peer experiences. He acknowledged that the 1981 Agronomy Facts supported the sale of Coker 747 by seed dealers. Despite the plaintiff's poor yield, other local farmers, like Wayne Snellgrove, achieved normal yields with the same variety when planted in mid to late November.

Legal considerations focus on implied warranties under Chapter 672 of the Florida Statutes, which pertains to the Uniform Commercial Code. The plaintiff must prove the elements of breach of implied warranty. Specifically, the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, defined in Section 672.315, requires the seller to know the specific purpose for which the goods are intended and that the buyer relies on the seller's expertise.

The court found that the plaintiff did not establish that he communicated a specific purpose for the wheat seed to Gold Kist. Conversations with Mr. Dicks, a warehouse employee, did not indicate a particular need. When the plaintiff requested Coker 747, there was no evidence of a communicated specific use. Consequently, there was no breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, as the plaintiff failed to show reliance on Gold Kist's expertise; instead, he conducted independent research before his purchase.

The plaintiff, having consulted various sources, chose to plant wheat seeds other than Coker 747, only purchasing it when alternatives were unavailable. He did not rely on Gold Kist for seed selection but believed Gold Kist would sell only adapted seeds for Florida. The Court found no legal duty for Gold Kist to disclose the limitations of Coker 747, which, despite being less suited for Florida, had shown potential for successful yields in the state. During a wheat seed shortage in 1981, the plaintiff and other farmers knowingly chose Coker 747, accepting its risks, and some achieved favorable results.

The Court emphasized that the farmer is best positioned to assess the risks and variables in planting decisions, including weather and soil conditions. The Court also addressed the plaintiff's claim for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability under Florida Statutes Section 672.314. It concluded that Coker 747, despite being a late-maturing variety not recommended for Florida, was fit for the ordinary purpose of wheat cultivation based on other farmers' experiences and test plantings. Thus, the Court deemed Coker 747 merchantable, as it met the criteria of passing without objection in trade and was suitable for its intended use.

Dr. Barnett indicated that while a dealer should inform farmers of Coker 747's limitations in Florida, its sale is permissible. Dr. Loden, a plant genetics expert, supported this by noting that Coker 747 can be cultivated in Florida, leading the Court to classify it as merchantable under Florida Statutes Section 672.314(2)(a). In Count VII of the Amended Complaint, the plaintiff claimed Gold Kist failed to sell seeds expected to produce a commercially viable crop under local conditions. However, the plaintiff did not cite any legal precedent for this duty, and while seed dealers can be liable for negligence under seed laws, no such violations were found here. The Court noted that any implied duty would derive from contract law rather than tort law and found no breach of duty since Coker 747 could reasonably yield a harvest in Florida.

In Count IX, the plaintiff alleged Gold Kist acted unconscionably by recommending Coker 747, despite knowing it was unsuitable for Florida. However, the plaintiff had conducted independent research on various wheat seeds before purchasing Coker 747 due to scarcity, indicating he did not rely on Gold Kist’s guidance. The Court concluded that Gold Kist acted in good faith and did not fail to engage fairly with the plaintiff. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of Gold Kist, directing judgment for the defendant. Additionally, all claims against the seed manufacturer were dismissed earlier, and the plaintiff's claims for breach of express warranty and false representations were also dismissed by directed verdict.