FARRIS AND COMPANY
v.
THE WILLIAM SCHLUDERSBERG, T. J. KURDLE COMPANY
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.
Farris and Company sought rehearing in a dispute over a carload of boned beef shipped from Jacksonville to Baltimore under a C.A.F. (cost and freight) contract. The Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior judgment, holding that while C.A.F. contracts generally limit the shipper's responsibility once goods are delivered to a carrier, pre-shipment issues such as whether goods were properly chilled and met contract specifications remain subject to the shipper's liability and may be litigated.
While C.A.F. contracts generally limit the shipper's responsibility to point of delivery to the carrier, the shipper remains liable for pre-shipment defects. If issues are raised as to whether goods met contract requirements at the time of shipment or whether the car was properly prepared, evidence may be taken and judgment rendered accordingly. The shipper's immunity under a C.A.F. contract applies only after the goods are properly loaded and ready to move.
“C. A. F. contract may not operate before time for the goods to move. After this, the consignor is not responsible for delicts.”
Establishes the temporal limitation on C.A.F. contract protection—liability for pre-shipment defects remains with the shipper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA carload of boned beef was shipped from Jacksonville to Baltimore under a C.A.F. contract. The goods were consigned to a consignor in Baltimore. Issu…
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.
*766On Petition for Rehearing
On petition for rehearing, it is urged that we did not give sufficient consideration to the validity and effect of a certain C. A. F. contract which was a very material element in the cause. In other words, it is contended that the carload of boned beef which was the subject matter of this litigation was shipped from Jacksonville to Baltimore under C. A. F. contract, meaning cost and freight allowed to point of destination, being the equivalent F. O. B. from point of origin and that when so shipped the responsibility of the shipper ceases when the goods are delivered to the carrier.
There can' be no doubt that this is the general rule as to goods shipped under C. A. F. contract. At the same time, if the issue is raised as to whether or not the goods moved from point of shipment promptly or when loaded were up to contract requirements evidence on such issues may be taken and if proven, judgment rendered accordingly. C. A. F. contract may not operate before time for the goods to move. After this, the consignor is not responsible for delicts.
In this case, the question of whether or not the car was prechilled properly and whether or n'ot it contained “old cuts” contrary to contract was clearly in issue. Evidence was taken on these issues and then the car was consigned to the consignor in' Baltimore so deliver}'- to the consignor took place there. We are not convinced that error was committed on these points.
Former judgment reaffirmed and rehearing denied.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, P. J., Buford, Ci-iapman and Ti-iomas, J. J., concur.
Justice Brown n'ot participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacobson v. Neuensorger Korbwaren-Industrie Friedrich Kretz, 109 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…5 N.E. 834; 2 Williston, Sales, § 280b (rev.ed.1948). From that point, and during the balance of the journey, the risk of loss was on the purchaser. Heinberg v. Cannon, 36 Fla. 601, 18 So. 714; Farris & Co. v. William Schluderberg, T. J. Kurdle Co., 142 Fla. 765, 196 So. 184; 2 Williston, Sales, id. While it was not involved in the contract as made up by the correspondence between [*615] the parties, the provision in the invoice forwarded in February 1955, to the effect that title would remain in the selle…
-
Ladex Corp. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales, S.A., 476 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
-
Sperry Rand Corp. v. Indus. Supply Corp., 337 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1964)…7, § 187. The only decision of a Florida court which has come to our attention involving a question as to the law applicable in an action on an implied warranty is Farris & Co. v. William Schluderberg, etc. Co., 141 Fla. 462, 193 So. 429, reh. den. 142 Fla. 765, 196 So. 184. A Florida vendor agreed by a contract executed in Maryland to sell and deliver in Maryland meat to be shipped from Florida. The place of contracting and the place of performance were the same. The court held that the contract was “a Ma…
Authorities Cited
- Farris & Co. v. The William Schluderberg, 141 Fla. 462 (Fla. 1940)