QUALITY FRUIT BUYERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
KILLARNEY FRUIT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the contract for the sale of future delivery of oranges at a fixed price was not void under the bucket shop law or statutes concerning identification of goods.
[1] A contract for the sale of goods at a fixed price, rather than at a price determined by market quotations, is not prohibited by the bucket shop law.
[2] The statute requiring identification of specific goods before an interest passes does not forbid the sale of fungible goods without specific identification.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQuality Fruit Buyers contracted to sell oranges it did not own to Killarney for future delivery at a fixed price. Quality defaulted on a portion of th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Quality Fruit Buyers, Inc., which bird-dogs, says bird-dogging is illegal. That takes a little explanation.
Quality agreed to sell 50,000 boxes of oranges, which it did not own, to Kil-larney for future delivery, at a price of 40 cents per pound solids. Florida is full of fruit buyers who “bird-dog,” finding oranges for processors and buyers for growers’ fruit. It delivered 20,297 boxes, but defaulted as to 29,703 boxes. The price having risen, Killarney sustained a loss fixed by the Commissioner of Agriculture at $17,331.70, which Quality paid rather than suffer the loss of its license. In this action to recover the amount paid, it alleges that the contract was void because it is forbidden by the bucket shop law, Fla.Stat. § 851.01 (1971), F.S.A., which forbids transactions “closed, adjusted, or settled according to or on the basis of the market quotations.” That isn’t what happened here. Quality didn’t agree to deliver at the market price on a future day, but at a price certain. The prohibition of the bucket shop law does not apply.
Quality next asserts that Fla. Stat. § 672.105(2), F.S.A., renders the transaction void. This point is also without merit. That statute relates to the identification of specific goods before an interest in the goods passes, but does not by any means forbid the sale of fungible goods without specific identification. It is simply irrelevant to the contract between Quality and Killarney.
*425Quality may not appreciate haying to live up to this contract, but unless there is something in the statutes not brought to our attention on this appeal, it may find comfort in the knowledge that its business is lawful. This means that if the price goes down instead of up during the current season, its customers cannot allege the invalidity of their agreements and offer only the market value for oranges delivered. The learned trial judge who entertained Quality’s action properly dismissed it.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.