Opinion ID: 857463
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Invoice #242380 ($6,720) and #242381 ($2,880)

Text: Turning to Six L’s claim for the partially delivered shipment of tomatoes, invoices #242380 and #242381, Sunfresh argues the parties never reached agreement on the sale. But the uncontroverted evidence—consisting of emails, invoices, and JE Beale’s own admissions—supports the existence of a binding contract. Challenging the district court’s conclusion to this effect, Sunfresh insists that the parties did not reach an agreement because the December 1 orders omitted the price term. The district court disagrees, and so do we. A sales contract may still be enforceable, even if it lacks a price term: 4 The parties assume that the UCC as enacted in Tennessee governs certain aspects of this case, likely because Sunfresh operates out of Lebanon, Tennessee. Since Florida has adopted the same UCC provisions, and the parties do not suggest otherwise, we do likewise. - 10 - No. 12-5659 Six L’s v. JR Beale, et al. In such a case the price is a reasonable price at the time for delivery if (a) nothing is said as to price; or (b) the price is left to be agreed by the parties and they fail to agree; or (c) the price is to be fixed in terms of some agreed market or other standard. Tenn. Code. Ann. § 47-2-305(1).5 Though Laporta and JE Beale’s email exchanges made no mention of price, the parties customarily priced the order a week after placement—allowing time for the tomatoes to ripen. Accordingly, Six L’s set the price for the December 1 order using the market values for tomatoes on December 8. Thus, when Sunfresh picked up the 240 cases of Silk and 160 cases of Velvet tomatoes on December 10, it paid the December 8 price for each. Sunfresh now argues it was picking up a different order on December 10, one placed that same day. It further contends that JE Beale’s email directing Laporta to “keep [his] orders cool” also pertains to that future order. The record belies this claim. JE Beale’s email predates the December 10 orders by two days. Sunfresh offers no evidence to account for this temporal discrepancy. Further, the instructions in the email—to keep the orders 5 Sunfresh also asserts that because the Tennessee Code goes on to state that “acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this chapter for nonconformity,” Tenn. Code. Ann. 47-2-607(2), it is permitted to recover damages from the non-conformity of the tender. See id. § 47- 2-714. Not only did Sunfresh forfeit this claim by raising it for the first time in its Rule 59 motion, Thurman v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 97 F.3d 833, 835 (6th Cir. 1996), but it misunderstands how the PACA and state contract law interact, Genecco Produce, Inc. v. Sandia Depot, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 165, 171 (W.D.N.Y. 2005) (“The Uniform Commercial Code (‘UCC’) applies to sales of produce under PACA, where PACA is silent as to a material part of the transaction at issue.”) (quotation marks omitted) (applying New York State’s codification of the UCC). PACA specifically addresses the issue of rejection after acceptance. - 11 - No. 12-5659 Six L’s v. JR Beale, et al. cool—runs counter to the parties’ past conduct, ripening tomatoes in heated storage for seven days before cooling them for transport. Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that the December 10 pick-up involved a different order, Sunfresh would still owe Six L’s for the December 1 orders. Sunfresh sidesteps this issue by arguing that where “the parties intend not to be bound unless the price be fixed or agreed and it is not . . . there is no contract.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-305(4). Yet Sunfresh offers no evidence to suggest the parties used price as a precondition to agreement. Quite the opposite, the parties recognized the risks associated with their variable price-fixing methods by using “lid” prices and other forms of market protection. These measures offset the inherent difficulties of transacting under variable pricing conditions, effectively undercutting Sunfresh’s claim that the parties’ used pricing as a precondition to agreement. Finally, Sunfresh objects to the commercial reasonableness of the resale, contending that Six L’s sold the remaining produce on the cheap. Given the depressed tomato market around the time of the resale, charging $11.95 for the Silks and $9.95 for the Velvets—amounting to 100% and 83% of the USDA-reported prices, respectively—was reasonable. Plus Six L’s had to resell the produce about a week past its intended pick-up date, likely affecting quality. Sunfresh fails to present evidence genuinely disputing Six L’s resale prices. - 12 - No. 12-5659 Six L’s v. JR Beale, et al.