Opinion
No. 1:02-cv-003
April 11, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case came before the Court for a nonjury trial conducted on April 3, 2003. This memorandum constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. In June 2000, plaintiff Wayne Griffith ("Griffith"), a tomato farmer, planted a late crop of tomatoes in a field on a "mountain" farm in Bledsoe County, Tennessee. In early August, he reached an oral agreement with defendant Javier Torres ("Torres"), who is part owner of the defendant Tomato Thyme Corporation ("Tomato Thyme"). The Court finds that this oral agreement was that Tomato Thyme would purchase the "field" for a total price of $75,000. This was based on a price of $1.50 per tomato plant for 50,000 plants. Tomato Thyme would receive all of the tomatoes grown in this field. There were an additional 12,000 to 15,000 plants in the field as well, but they were somewhat anemic due to hot weather. Griffith and Torres had some discussions about compensation for these additional plants, but no agreement was ever reached by the parties about these additional plants.
At the time of the oral agreement, Torres had the opportunity to examine the field. Griffith did tell Torres that he thought that the field should yield 15,000 to 20,000 twenty-five pound boxes of tomatoes. This, however, did not amount to a representation which constituted an actual term of the contract. It was more of a mere observation. It was not relied upon by Torres, who is an experienced tomato buyer capable of looking at the field on his own and making a judgment about the tomato plants.
As it turned out, the hazards of agriculture intervened. The field yielded only about 13,600 twenty-five pound boxes; and some of the tomatoes were of poor quality. Others had to be picked in a hurry, and before they were mature, to avoid an early frost during the first week of October 2000.
Tomato Thyme paid Griffith $50,000. Griffith in this case seeks to recover the $25,000 difference between what he was paid and the $75,000 contract price. He also seeks to recover a "bonus," which Griffith claims was to amount to fifty percent of everything Tomato Thyme received in excess of $8.00 per box for tomatoes from the extra 12,000 to 15,000 anemic plants. The Court finds that there was an oral agreement reached by the parties that the field of tomatoes would be purchased for $75,000. The Court further finds that Griffith did not violate any of the terms of this agreement. Tomato Thyme took the risk that the field's tomatoes would justify the price paid. Accordingly, Griffith is ENTITLED TO RECOVER the unpaid part of his contract, namely $25,000.
There was also some discussion between the parties about whether Griffith could provide a propane heat producing machine to prevent possible frost damage. Griffith, however, never actually promised that he would use this machine; and it is unclear whether it would have helped Tomato Thyme if it had been provided.
Griffith is not, however, entitled to recover any "bonus" for tomatoes from the additional plants. As related above, the parties never reached any agreement on this matter, and even if they did, Griffith would not be entitled to recovery since these tomatoes on the average did not bring more than $8.00 per box.
Tomato Thyme relies on the Tennessee statute of frauds, TENN. CODE ANN. § 47-2-201, to argue that Griffith's recovery is limited to the payment that has been made and received, i.e., the $50,000. The Court concludes, however, that the statute of frauds does not apply here. Both parties have admitted the existence of the oral contract; therefore, the purpose of the statute of frauds — to prevent fraud by requiring some writing that shows a contract between the parties actually existed — has already been fulfilled. Where the defendant admits to the existence of the contract, the plaintiff "does not have to rely on its own performance as evidence of the oral contract under section 47-2-201(3)(c) of Tennessee Code Annotated." Off Road Performance/Go Rhino v. Walls, 2002 WL 31259436, at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App. Sept. 16, 2002). To the extent Tomato Thyme argues that there was no agreement on the quantity of goods, the Court finds that the quantity term contained in this contract was for all the tomatoes in "one" field. The parties did not contract for any particular amount of tomatoes. Thus, there really is no dispute about quantity.
A judgment will enter.
JUDGMENT
This case came before the Court for a bench trial on April 3, 2003. For the reasons expressed in the memorandum opinion filed herewith, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that plaintiff Wayne Griffith have and RECOVER of the defendant Tomato Thyme Corporation, the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) with interest thereon at the rate of 1.18% as provided by law, and his costs of action.
Also, for the reasons expressed on the record, all claims against defendants Javier Torres and Don Bither are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.