C. S. PROODIAN
v.
PLYMOUTH CITRUS GROWERS ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION
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.
C. S. Proodian sued on behalf of his wife to recover retain certificates from Plymouth Citrus Growers Association, claiming the fruit was her separate property. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment for the Association, holding that the wife could not accept the benefits of the cooperative contract while rejecting its penalties.
The court held that the wife cannot recover the retain certificates while rejecting the contractual penalties. One who deals through an agent and accepts the favorable terms of a contract cannot disclaim the unfavorable terms, and the fifty-cent-per-box penalty as liquidated damages was reasonable to enforce cooperative membership obligations.
“It is elementary that one who deals through an agent will not be allowed to retain the favorable and reject the unfavorable part of the contract.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the wife cannot accept retain certificates while disclaiming contractual penalties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlymouth Citrus Growers Association is a non-profit cooperative that charged members for handling fruit and issued retain certificates from seasonal p…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by appellant (plaintiff) from an adverse judgment wherein she sought to collect the proeeéds of certain retain certificates from appellee. We had another phase of this case before us in Proodian v. Plymouth Citrus Growers Ass’n., 149 Fla. 507, 6 So. (2nd) 531.
The record reveals that appelle is a non-profit corporation and is a cooperative citrus marketing agency. Its members are elected upon application and when so elected are subject to the conditions in the association’s by-laws. It was the practice of appellee to estimate the cost of handling its members’ fruit and charge accordingly. At the end of the season if there was a profit, such profit would be issued in the form of retain certificates. As funds accumulated the oldest series of certificates would be paid.
C. S. Proodian became a member and acquired some of the retain certificates. He sued for and on behalf of his wife *685to collect the certificates alleging that the fruit handled was the separate property of his wife and therefore the retain certificates belonged to her. The association successfully defeated the action-by a plea of set off, alleging, in substance, that while the certificates might belong to the wife, the husband contracted for and on her behalf and while the contract was in existence the husband breached the same by selling the citrus fruit to a stranger and thereby incurred a penalty in excess of the certificates sued upon. The husband was the lawful agent of the wife. Florida Citrus Exchange v. Grisham, 65 Fla. 46, 61 So. 123. It is elementary that one who deals through an agent will not be allowed to retain the favorable and reject the unfavorable part of the contract. See Love v. Brown Dev. Co., 100 Fla. 1373, 131 So. 144, and cases there cited.
This is a case of not unusual occurrence although it appears to be the first of its kind to appear before this Court.
By the cooperative method, under good management, usually much can be saved. The system, in general, tends to secure a uniform and fair price to the grower.
When events occur causing rapid increase in prices there is a great temptation to leave the cooperative and sell elsewhere. If this is practiced generally it will defeat the program of the cooperative. To prevent this, regulations, with penalties for the enforcement, must of necessity, be set up. It is not questioned here that the fifty cents per box penalty, as liquidated damages, was reasonable. The wife tenaciously seeks her claim, but disclaims the penalty saying the contract was that of her husband. We are unable to sustain her contention in logic or plain justice. Had it not been for the contract there would have been no business transaction to make possible the profits evidenced by the certificates in question.
Other questions argued have been duly considered and found without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martha A. Gottfried, Inc. v. Paulette Koch Real Est., Inc., 778 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…Beach Board of Realtors, is, nevertheless, bound by her agreement to arbitrate, as having accepted the economic and professional benefits of Hoffpauer’s membership with the board. See, e.g., Proodian v. Plymouth Citrus Growers, Ass’n, 152 Fla. 684, 13 So. 2d 15 (1943); C.Q. Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 363 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Accordingly, we affirm as to this and as to all other issues raised in this appeal. STONE, POLEN, and GROSS, JJ„ concur.…
-
C. Q. Farms, Inc. v. Cargill Inc., 363 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…ction or to secure interests which were the fruit of such transaction and to which he would be entitled only if the act had been authorized . . .” The foregoing rule applies in Florida. Proodian v. Plymouth Citrus Growers Association, 152 Fla. 684, 13 So. 2d 15 (1943); Standard Oil v. Nickerson, 103 Fla. 701, 138 So. 55 (1931); Meyer v. Nator Holding Company, 102 Fla. 915, 136 So. 636 (1931); Love v. Brown Development Co. of Michigan, 100 Fla. 1373, 131 So. 144 (1930); Massachusetts Bonding and Ins. v. Hox…
-
C.A. Hansen Corp. v. AETNA Ins. Co., 455 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…g the policy could not be visited on him. One who deals through an agent in making a contract will not be allowed to retain the favorable and reject the unfavorable part of the contract. Proodian v. Plymouth Citrus Growers Association, 152 Fla. 684, 13 So. 2d 15 (1943); C.Q. Farms, Inc. v. Cargill Inc., 363 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Hoxie, 129 Fla. 332, 176 So. 480 (1937). Likewise, Aetna, standing in Watson’s shoes as subrogee, cannot assume that position. Re…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Love v. Brown Dev. Co. of Mich., 100 Fla. 1373 (Fla. 1930)
- Fla. Citrus Exch. v. Grisham, 65 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1913)