OSCEOLA FARMS CO., APPELLANT,
v.
WILDER BROS. FARMS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, DAVID BRAMSON, AND 715 FARMS, LTD., A PARTNERSHIP, APPELLEES
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.
A contract for sugar cane grinding tied to pricing formulas under the expired 1948 U.S. Sugar Act became unenforceable when the Act expired in 1966, and subsequent negotiations did not create an implied contract.
A long-term contract for sugar cane grinding becomes unenforceable when the statutory pricing scheme upon which it depends expires and no new pricing mechanism is established.
[1] A contract whose price terms are made dependent upon statutory pricing formulas becomes unenforceable when the underlying statute expires and the formulas cease to be est…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOsceola Farms and Wilder Bros. Farms entered into a long-term contract for production and grinding of sugar cane with prices set according to formulas…
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 Contract Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This appeal seeks to reverse the trial court’s finding that a contract between the parties is void and no longer enforceable. The parties entered into a long term contract for the production and grinding of sugar cane. The price to be paid for the grinding of the cane was to be in accordance with certain formulas and regulations established by the sugar branch of the United States Department of Agriculture under the general statutory scheme of the United States Sugar Act of 1948. After functioning under the contract for many years, appellees sued to terminate the contract on the theory that the price was no longer fixed or determinable. It was asserted and proved to the satisfaction of the trial court that the United States Department of Agriculture no longer established pricing formulas and regulations. This was because the United States Sugar Act of 1948 expired in December of 1966.
The trial court found the contract was no longer enforceable and that the negotiations between the parties subsequent to the expiration of the United States Sugar Act did not serve to create an implied contract. Appellant has failed to demonstrate error in the factual findings or legal conclusions of the trial court. The final judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
CROSS, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.