A.J. Cunningham Packing Corp. v. Florence Beef Co., 85-1344
| Decision Date | 05 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1344,85-1344 |
| Citation | 785 F.2d 348 |
| Parties | 42 UCC Rep.Serv. 1196 A.J. CUNNINGHAM PACKING CORP., Plaintiff, Appellee, v. The FLORENCE BEEF CO., Defendant, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
John A. Donovan, Jr. with whom Thomas D. Burns, Michael B. Weinberg and Burns & Levinson, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for defendant, appellant.
Arnold E. Cohen with whom Englander, Englander & Finks, P.C., Boston, Mass., was on brief, for plaintiff, appellee.
Before COFFIN and BREYER, Circuit Judges, and HILL, * District Judge.
A quarter-century ago, Judge Friendly confronted the question of "what is a chicken". Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp., 190 F.Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y.1960). Today we are asked to review a case in which the jury had to confront the meatier issue of "what's the beef".
Plaintiff/Appellee A.J. Cunningham Packing Corp. ("Cunningham") sued Defendant/Appellant The Florence Beef Co. ("Florence") for breach of contract. Cunningham, the seller, alleged that Florence, the buyer, wrongfully rejected a shipment The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for Cunningham with damages set at $50,457.38. The court entered judgment in that amount. Shortly thereafter, the court denied Florence's alternative motion for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial.
of four loads of Australian boneless beef, which Florence had ordered on December 28, 1979. Both sides agree that the contract required the beef to be "85% chemically lean". Florence rejected the beef claiming it failed to meet that requirement.
Florence appeals from both the judgment and the court's denial of its alternative motion. Florence advances three claims of error, all involving rulings on evidence. They are: (1) the court's exclusion of evidence offered by Florence that related to the concept of "visual leanness"; (2) the court's exclusion of testimony from Florence's meat industry expert about trade usage; and, (3) the court's apparent invocation of the parol evidence rule to justify the exclusion of certain evidence.
In a telephone conversation on December 28, 1979, Cunningham agreed to sell, and Florence agreed to buy, four loads of Australian boneless beef, guaranteed to be 85% "chemical lean". The same day, Cunningham sent to Florence four separate but identical Sales Confirmation Orders, one for each of the four loads. Florence signed and dated each order on January 10, 1980, and returned them to Cunningham. On the front of each order, the words "THIS ORDER SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF SALE ON FACE AND REVERSE SIDE HEREOF" appear. On the reverse side, under the "Conditions of Sale", item number 4 provides in relevant part that:
In the event Buyer claims product covered by this contract is less than the chemical leanness specified in this contract, Seller has the right to arrange independent testing. Should the product test less than the guaranteed chemical leanness, Seller will allow for excessive fat content based on selling price, and Buyer will accept such as full settlement. (emphasis added).
Between December 28, 1979, when the beef was ordered, and the date when the beef was received, the record indicates the price of beef had fallen and it continued to fall until Florence unequivocally rejected the shipments.
Shortly after receiving the four loads, Florence had a laboratory test them for chemical leanness. The results showed the loads to be 83.86%, 81.54%, 81.74% and 80.96% chemical lean, respectively. Florence notified Cunningham of the test results on January 28, 1980.
What happened next is disputed, but the parties do agree that the four loads were subsequently tested again by two different laboratories, and the averaged results showed them to be 84.7%, 83.25%, 83.6% and 83.5% chemical lean. The parties accept these averaged figures as correct.
Based on those figures, Cunningham recognized that the beef delivered did not fully satisfy the contract requirement of 85% chemical lean. Mr. Knight, who was Cunningham's operations manager at the time, testified that it was the customary practice between these parties, as well as a custom in the trade, that when a buyer's claim that meat does not satisfy the contract specifications is verified by testing, the seller reduces the purchase price. The amount of the reduction, as well as the circumstances under which the buyer must accept such a reduction rather than reject the beef, are set forth in "Guidelines for the Settlement of Fat Claims", a publication promulgated by the Meat Importers Council of America. 1
After confirming the test results, Cunningham notified Florence that it would credit Florence's account for the required price adjustments. The parties agree that, if the Guidelines govern the transaction, Florence was not allowed to reject any part of the shipment and Cunningham made proper price adjustments, as the Guidelines required.
After further delay, (the cause and significance of which the parties dispute) Florence, in April 1980, unequivocally rejected the beef, and Cunningham ultimately resold the beef to various buyers at a loss.
We now take up each ground of appeal in turn.
When the beef arrived from Australia, it was contained in cartons which bore the letters "BCVL" without further explanation as to their meaning or significance. Florence contends that those letters were a representation about the quality of the beef in terms of visual leanness; namely, that the letters "BCVL" mean the beef packed in the boxes is 87.5% visual lean, and that 87.5% visual lean equals 82.5% chemical lean. Building from that contention, Florence goes on to claim that it was entitled to reject all the beef delivered because of the BCVL markings and what they mean.
Florence hoped to show that there is a custom in the trade that the Guidelines with their permissible price adjustments do not apply if the seller knowingly sent meat which did not fulfill the 85% chemical lean standard specified by the buyer. Since "BCVL" is allegedly a standard which, when transmuted into chemical leanness is below 85% chemical leanness, Florence contends that the Australian shipper knew that the meat it was shipping would not satisfy the 85% standard. Thus Florence, according to this theory, was justified in rejecting the meat it received in boxes marked "BCVL".
Some of the evidence offered by Florence to support this theory is contained in offers of proof from several witnesses. On many occasions the court sustained objections to testimony along these lines. The trial judge appears to have rejected the offered evidence on the essential ground that it was irrelevant, and, if admitted, would tend to confuse the jury.
We note that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, Harrington v. United States, 504 F.2d 1306 (1st Cir.1974), and the court's determination...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trent Partners and Associates v. Digital Equip.
...industry custom and usage is relevant to contract interpretation, even in the absence of ambiguity,14 A.J. Cunningham Packing Corp. v. Florence Beef Co., 785 F.2d 348, 351 (1st Cir.1986); however, this evidence must be construed, where possible, as consistent with the terms of the contract ......
-
Den Norske Bank AS v. First Nat. Bank of Boston
... ... G. & K. Realty Corp., 357 Mass. 512, 258 N.E.2d 786, 788 (1970) ... Submarine Signal Co., 325 Mass. 546, 91 N.E.2d 667, 669-70 (1950) ... b (1981); A.J. Cunningham Packing Corp. v. Florence Beef Co., 785 F.2d 348, ... ...
-
Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. Constitution Reinsurance Corp.
...564 (1974), quoting Baccari v. B. Perini & Sons, Inc., 293 Mass. 297, 303, 199 N.E. 912 (1936). See A.J. Cunningham Packing Corp. v. Florence Beef Co., 785 F.2d 348, 351 (1st Cir.1986). See also 3 A. Corbin, Contracts § 555, at 232-233 (1960). Express terms are to be given preference in int......
-
Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
...Moreover, evidence of trade usage may be used even if no ambiguity exists in the contract. See, e.g., A.J. Cunningham Packing Corp. v. Florence Beef Co., 785 F.2d 348 (1st Cir.1986); Typographical Serv., Inc. v. Itek Corp., 721 F.2d 1317 (11th Cir.1983); Morgan v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 34......
-
Evolving Business and Social Normsand Interpretation Rules: the Needfor a Dynamic Approach Tocontract Disputes
...clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract . . . ."). 232. 785 F.2d 348 (1st Cir. 1986). 233. Id. at 349. 234. Id. 235. Id. 236. Id. 237. Id. 238. 239. Id. 240. Id. 241. Id. at 351. 242. Id. at 351; see also Nanaku......