Opinion ID: 444008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 FMA and FSS have been contracting with each other for the sale and purchase of strawberries for a number of years. FMA is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri, and FSS is a Minnesota corporation also with its principal place of business in Missouri. FMA acquired strawberries for FSS through Coastal Marketing Associates, Inc. (Coastal), a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. In turn, Coastal acquired its strawberries, in this case, from Golden State Strawberries (GSS/Consolidated), a California packer owned in part by Consolidated Processors of California. GSS/Consolidated paid Coastal's commission. 3 The usual procedure for acquiring strawberries was as follows. FMA and FSS would enter into a contract that called for FMA to deliver and FSS to buy a certain amount of strawberries for the upcoming year. Then FMA would contact Coastal and ask it to obtain the strawberries needed to fulfill the FMA/FSS contract. Coastal sent the invoices for the strawberries it obtained directly to FSS. FSS then would pay Coastal an amount that included the packer's price, Coastal's commission, and FMA's commission. After deducting the packer's price to (GSS/Consolidated) and its own commission, Coastal would send the balance to FMA. 4 For the 19 82/83 year, FMA and FSS entered into a contract. The contract stipulated the amount of strawberries to be purchased, the purchase price, carrying charges, specifications for shipping, and storage specifications. The contract also contained a clause which protected FSS against a drop in the market price of strawberries after August 30, 1982. 2 5 Following general practice, FMA called upon Coastal to get the strawberries needed to fulfill the FMA/FSS contract. Coastal, in turn, contacted the packer, GSS/Consolidated. Coastal and GSS/Consolidated exchanged documents dated June 11, 1982. Coastal's document, sales memo no. 8588, listed GSS as the seller and FSS as the buyer. Coastal's document also contained a price protection clause, in accordance with the FMA/FSS contract, which would have protected FSS against a drop in the market price of strawberries. GSS/Consolidated's June 11 memo, sales memo no. 3719, agreed with Coastal's document in all respects except that memo no. 3719 did not contain a price protection clause. On June 21, GSS/Consolidated brought this discrepancy to Coastal's attention. 3 On August 13, 1982, Coastal notified FMA that GSS/Consolidated was not honoring the protection clause. 4 6 Nonetheless, during June, July, and August of 1982, Coastal procured for shipment to FSS nine truckloads of strawberries from GSS/Consolidated at the contract price. After August, the list price of strawberries fell below the contract price. Coastal and GSS/Consolidated had several discussions about the price at which GSS/Consolidated would continue to sell strawberries to FSS. GSS/Consolidated maintained that it would sell fruit to FSS only at the original contract price, plus the storage charges incurred after August of 1982. This position was unacceptable to FMA, as it was required by contract to protect FSS from price falls. In March of 1983, GSS/Consolidated and FMA had a discussion which failed to produce a solution acceptable to both parties to the price dispute. As a result, FMA informed GSS/Consolidated that it would obtain strawberries from a different source, and proceeded to do so. 7 On March 17, 1983, GSS/Consolidated sent a mailgram to FSS which stated as follows: 8 We were advised orally that you are not going to perform under our contract Number 3719 for frozen strawberries. We are hereby giving you notice that we expect performance and ask that you respond directly to me at Golden State Strawberries within 5 days whether or not you intend to perform. 9 FSS responded, telling GSS/Consolidated that there was no contract between them. FSS also called upon FMA to take action to protect FSS against a GSS/Consolidated claim. FMA then retained an attorney who notified GSS/Consolidated that there was no contract between GSS/Consolidated and FMA, FSS or Coastal. Nevertheless, GSS/Consolidated continued to contact FSS, and finally notified FSS that it intended to perform in full and would transfer any unshipped fruit into storage under FSS' name. GSS/Consolidated did transfer the remaining shipments into storage, and charged FSS at the contract price for them. FSS received via Coastal two bills for storage charges, which were forwarded to FMA. 10 In May of 1983, FMA and FSS filed this lawsuit for declaratory, injunctive and damages relief in the state Circuit Court in St. Louis County, Missouri. GSS/Consolidated, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a) (1982), removed this action to the federal district court in Missouri. In count one of their complaint FMA and FSS sought from the district court a declaration that there was no contract between either of them and GSS/Consolidated. In counts two and three of the complaint FMA and FSS alleged that GSS/Consolidated had intentionally and tortiously interfered with their contractual relationship, and sought an injunction against future interference, plus actual and punitive damages. In all counts, FMA and FSS alleged that Coastal was the agent of GSS/Consolidated. The district court granted GSS/Consolidated's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.