Seminole Peanut Co. v. Goodson, Nos. 70665

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
Writing for the CourtBANKE; McMURRAY, P.J., and BENHAM
Citation176 Ga.App. 42,335 S.E.2d 157
Parties, 42 UCC Rep.Serv. 74 SEMINOLE PEANUT COMPANY v. GOODSON (Two Cases).
Decision Date16 September 1985
Docket Number70666,Nos. 70665

Page 157

335 S.E.2d 157
176 Ga.App. 42, 42 UCC Rep.Serv. 74
SEMINOLE PEANUT COMPANY

v.
GOODSON (Two Cases).
Nos. 70665, 70666.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sept. 16, 1985.

[176 Ga.App. 46] Bruce W. Kirbo, Bainbridge, Kenneth L. Hornsby, Donaldsonville, for appellant.

Ben Kirbo, Bainbridge, for appellees.

[176 Ga.App. 42]

Page 158

BANKE, Chief Judge.

The appellant, Seminole Peanut Company, is in the business of purchasing peanuts from farmers and other sources and shelling them for resale to commercial users. The appellees, L.R. and Ronnie L. Goodson, are peanut farmers. They filed separate suits against Seminole to recover actual and punitive damages and attorney fees for breach of contract and fraud, based on allegations that Seminole's president, Lee Jones, had induced them to sell Seminole a portion of their 1983 crop by misrepresenting the amount of money they would ultimately receive as consideration for the sale. The two cases were consolidated for trial. The jury found for Seminole on the breach of contract claim but awarded damages and attorney fees to the appellees on the fraud claim. On appeal, Seminole contends that the trial [176 Ga.App. 43] court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Under federal regulations, part of the appellees' crop was categorized as "quota" peanuts and the remainder as "additional" peanuts. For the year 1983, the appellees were entitled to receive no less than $550 per ton base grade for their quota peanuts and no less than $185 per ton base grade for their "additional" peanuts.

The federal price support program for peanuts is administered in Georgia by an organization known as the Georgia, Florida, Alabama Peanut Association, or "GFA." For the year 1983, the appellees were entitled under federal regulations to deliver to GFA as many "additional" peanuts as they could produce and to receive from GFA an immediate "loan" in the amount of the support price, i.e., $185 per ton base grade. All such "additional" peanuts delivered to GFA were placed in a "pool" and, after the harvest season was over, were sold on a competitive bid basis. After this selling activity was completed, the profits were then divided among the participating farmers on a pro rata basis.

Federal regulations required the appellees either to place their 1983 "additional" peanuts with the GFA for disposition in the above manner or else contract in writing to sell them to an approved handler prior to April 14, 1983. Seminole is an approved handler; and on February 22 and April 13, 1983, the appellees entered into several contracts with it for the sale of their entire 1983 peanut crop. In each case, the price contracted to be paid for the appellees' "additional" peanuts was approximately $250 per ton base grade. However, each contract gave the appellee the additional options at harvest time to "negotiate with the handler [Seminole] a price higher than specified above ... or place such peanuts [with the GFA] under loan at the additional price support level." Under the option to "negotiate with the handler a price higher than specified above," Seminole offered its own "pool" for additional peanuts. Under this pool arrangement, the farmer received $250 per ton base grade upon delivery and later received a pro rata share of any profit which might be generated upon resale of the peanuts in the pool.

On October 4, 1983, the appellees began harvesting their peanuts and reached the point of having to elect which of the three options to exercise, i.e., deliver their additional peanuts to Seminole at $250 per ton base grade, participate in Seminole's additional peanut pool, or participate in GFA's additional peanut pool. Under both pool arrangements, of course, the crucial factor in determining how much the appellees would ultimately receive was the price ultimately obtained upon the resale of the peanuts in the pool.

It appears without dispute from the evidence introduced...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Patray v. Northwest Pub., Inc., Civil Action No. 696-52.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Georgia)
    • June 13, 1996
    ...resulting from the fraud arising out of the contract. Id., 212 Ga.App. at 74-75, 441 S.E.2d 421; see also Seminole Peanut Co. v. Goodson, 176 Ga.App. 42, 45, 335 S.E.2d 157 (1985) ("An independent action in tort based on fraud and deceit arising out of contract is not a suit for the violati......
  • Matter of Lumpkin Sand and Gravel, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 87-40005-COL
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Georgia
    • August 25, 1989
    ...need not be in writing to be enforceable with respect to goods "which have been received and accepted." Seminole Peanut Co. v. Goodson, 176 Ga.App. 42, 335 S.E.2d 157, 159 (1985). See also Bicknell v. Joyce Sportswear Co., 173 Ga. App. 897, 328 S.E.2d 564, 565 (1985); Jem Patents, Inc. v. F......
  • Imex Intern., Inc. v. WIRES EL, No. A03A1218
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 2003
    ...accepted the machine and used it for over a month without giving a seasonable notice of rejection. See Seminole Peanut Co. v. Goodson, 176 Ga.App. 42, 45(1), 335 S.E.2d 157 (1985) (buyer that received and accepted peanuts from seller cannot argue that there is no enforceable contract). Even......
  • Sewell v. Cancel, Nos. A12A1951
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • March 30, 2015
    ...as to any essential element of [a] plaintiff's claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards”).41 232 Ga. 307, 207 S.E.2d 197 (1974).42 176 Ga.App. 42, 335 S.E.2d 157 (1985).43 (Emphasis supplied.)44 285 Ga. 521, 678 S.E.2d 71 (2009).45 OCGA § 31–7–131(1).46 OCGA § 31–7–131(3)(B).47 Hosp.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Patray v. Northwest Pub., Inc., Civil Action No. 696-52.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Georgia)
    • June 13, 1996
    ...resulting from the fraud arising out of the contract. Id., 212 Ga.App. at 74-75, 441 S.E.2d 421; see also Seminole Peanut Co. v. Goodson, 176 Ga.App. 42, 45, 335 S.E.2d 157 (1985) ("An independent action in tort based on fraud and deceit arising out of contract is not a suit for the violati......
  • Matter of Lumpkin Sand and Gravel, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 87-40005-COL
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Eleventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of Georgia
    • August 25, 1989
    ...need not be in writing to be enforceable with respect to goods "which have been received and accepted." Seminole Peanut Co. v. Goodson, 176 Ga.App. 42, 335 S.E.2d 157, 159 (1985). See also Bicknell v. Joyce Sportswear Co., 173 Ga. App. 897, 328 S.E.2d 564, 565 (1985); Jem Patents, Inc. v. F......
  • Imex Intern., Inc. v. WIRES EL, No. A03A1218
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 5, 2003
    ...accepted the machine and used it for over a month without giving a seasonable notice of rejection. See Seminole Peanut Co. v. Goodson, 176 Ga.App. 42, 45(1), 335 S.E.2d 157 (1985) (buyer that received and accepted peanuts from seller cannot argue that there is no enforceable contract). Even......
  • Sewell v. Cancel, Nos. A12A1951
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • March 30, 2015
    ...as to any essential element of [a] plaintiff's claim, that claim tumbles like a house of cards”).41 232 Ga. 307, 207 S.E.2d 197 (1974).42 176 Ga.App. 42, 335 S.E.2d 157 (1985).43 (Emphasis supplied.)44 285 Ga. 521, 678 S.E.2d 71 (2009).45 OCGA § 31–7–131(1).46 OCGA § 31–7–131(3)(B).47 Hosp.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT