Categories
SOLUTIONS

Membership Update for November, 2024

List of New MembersMembership Change in Status | Expulsion Notice

Welcome new members!

We are pleased to welcome the following 15 new members in November 2024. 

DAN AVILA & SONS PACKING INC., CA, United States
JOUMA PACK, Souss-Massa, Morocco
GERALD’S AVOCADOS S.A. DE C.V. (También haciendo negocios como Gerald’s Avocados), Michoacan, Mexico
1867 PRODUCE INC., ON, Canada
RANA WHOLESALE LTD., AB, Canada
MACROLAND, Souss-Massa, Morocco
AREL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE INC., ON, Canada
FLAVOR & PRODUCE IMPORT CORP., ON, Canada
ATLAS FOOD AND BEVERAGE INC., ON, Canada
CUISINORD (A d/b/a of 9075-3294 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
KIM’S CHOICE FOOD INC., BC, Canada
16477411 CANADA INC., ON, Canada
AMBAKITI QUALITY PRODUCE INC., ON, Canada
SUN BRIDGE IMPORT EXPORT INC. ON, Canada
TERRA FRESKA PRODUCE INC., ON, Canada

To view a complete list of active membersclick here.

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of November 29th, 2024, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

AGROEXPORTADORA SOL DE OLMOS S.A.C., Lima, Peru
BBN TRANSPORT LTD., AB, Canada
FAIRFIELD FARMS (A d/b/a of 702195 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
FRESHQUITA BRANDS LLC., TX, United States
WORLD PRODUCE CO (A d/b/a of 9093923 Canada Ltd.), ON, Canada
BTRUST SUPERMARKET (A d/b/a of 2202693 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
FRESH MIX LIMITED, ON, Canada
ERA FRUITS ET LÉGUMES INC., QC, Canada

Expulsion Notice: On November 15th, 2024, GC IMPORTERS LTD was expelled from the DRC membership for not paying debts as they became due, issuing a non-sufficient funds cheque, and failing to provide information as requested. 

Click here to view a complete list of inactive members. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. The DRC is a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 16 countries outside North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a DRC member.

In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

The DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million to date. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation/mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

For more information about memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

Categories
SOLUTIONS

ARBITRATION DECISION BRIEF: Dispute over change of Terms of the Sale, use of Private Inspections and Fair Return.

In this dispute, the arbitrator concluded that there was not enough evidence to support the Claimant’s agreement to change the terms of the sale to Consignment. However, the arbitrator noted that since the Claimant did not raise any objections to the findings of the private inspection, this report would be used to evaluate whether the product met the Good Arrival Guidelines upon arrival and to establish a fair return.

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has developed a series of articles summarizing past arbitration decisions. These articles will help members understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in a dispute.

The DRC Dispute R&S states that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is as administrator of the arbitration process; the DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.

ABSTRACT | SUMMARY OF FACTS | ARBITRATOR ANALYSIS AND REASONING | DRC COMMENTS

ABSTRACT

The arbitration decision relates to a dispute between parties from the United States and Canada over the claimed agreement to change the terms of the sale and the credibility of the private inspection.

Based on the findings, the arbitrator determined that there was insufficient written evidence to support the Claimant’s agreement to change the terms of the contract to Consignment. The Claimant’s non-objection upon receipt of the private inspection report was considered in determining whether the product received was within DRC Good Arrival and if not, what would be the fair return.

This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.

CASE: DRC File #19030 – Parties Domiciled – United States and Canada
SUMMARY OF FACTS:

On or about January 23, 2013, the Claimant sold a load of 1,035 cases of 5-count Canary Melons and 336 cases of 6-count Canary Melons to the Respondent, Free on Board (F.O.B.) shipping point, through a broker for USD $5.25 per case. The total invoice amount was USD $7,197.75, plus an additional $23.50 for the temperature recorder.

The load was shipped from Pompano Beach, Florida, on January 24, 2013, and it was delivered to Montreal, Quebec, on January 26, 2013.

On January 28, 2013, a private inspection was requested and performed. The inspection report revealed that the 1,035 cases of 5-count melons showed 22% surface discoloration and 4.5% bruising, while the 336 cases of 6-count melons were affected by 18% surface discoloration and 5% bruising. The pulp temperatures recorded during the inspection ranged from 49.5°F to 50.3°F.

The inspection report was shared by the Respondent to the Claimant’s broker and the broker forwarded them to the Claimant by email the same day. Communication between the Claimant, the Claimant’s broker and the Respondent shows an agreement for the Respondent to handle the product for the Claimant’s account.

On February 18, 2013, the Respondent provided an Account of Sales to the Claimant, which indicated gross sales of $5,109.80 and total expenses of $5,342.13.

In its Statement of Defense, the Respondent included invoices corresponding to the sales listed in the Account of Sales, showing sale dates between January 29 and February 13, 2013.

In the Statement of Claim, the Claimant seeks payment of $7,221.25 for the sale of the melons to the Respondent, reimbursement of $208.83 (which was deducted by the Respondent from a check issued as payment for an unrelated matter), and $600.00 in DRC filing fees. In its Statement of Defense, the Respondent has requested that the Statement of Claim be dismissed.

SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

I. What is the value, if anything, of the results of DRC File #19002, to the determination of this case?

The results of DRC File #19002 are not applicable to the current case due to a key difference. Although both DRC #19002 and #19030 involve inspections by IPIC International, the Claimant, in this case, agreed, by inaction, to use this private inspection service. In DRC File #19002, there was no evidence of such agreement.

II. Did the Parties Agree to Modify the Term of Sale from ‘F.O.B. Shipping Point’ to Either ‘Consignment’ or ‘Open’?

The Respondent must prove any modification of the sale terms from ‘F.O.B. Shipping Point’ to ‘Consignment’ or ‘Open Price.’ To show a change to a consignment transaction, the evidence must indicate the seller relinquished its claim for payment while allowing the handling of the load. Vague phrases like “handle the load” are not enough to establish a consignment agreement. Here, emails between the Claimant and their broker specify that the Respondent was to handle the melons “for the Claimant’s account.” The Claimant’s reply indicated he agreed but did not prove he intended to give up the right to the sales price. Thus, the Claimant has given clear authority to Respondent to sell the melons on their behalf, establishing that the sale shifted from FOB to ‘Open,’ but not to ‘Consignment.’

III. What credibility, if any, should be accorded to Inspection Report No. U114B090C?

The Respondent claims that the Claimant violated the warranty of suitable shipping conditions and has presented inspection report No. U114B090C as evidence. Since the Claimant accepted the use of this private inspection service, they have implicitly agreed to its findings.

According to the DRC Good Inspection Guidelines, private inspections cannot be treated as prima facie evidence, and the party submitting them must prove their credibility. The DRC Inspection Policy outlines that independent inspections can be recognized if they meet certain standards. The burden of proof lies with the party providing these inspections. 

Upon reviewing the inspection report and the inspector’s qualifications, the arbitrator finds the inspections meet DRC Inspection Standards. The inspector’s five years with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and his supervisory role assure his ability to conduct inspections properly. The Inspection report indicates that the inspection aligns with the required standards, including thorough sampling and accurate reporting of melon conditions. Therefore, the arbitrator concluded that the inspection report is credible evidence of the melons’ condition upon arrival.

IV. Did the Claimant Breach the Warranty of Suitable Shipping Conditions by Shipping Melons That Failed to Make Good Arrival?

According to DRC Trading Standards, the product, in this case, melons, must be in good condition for normal shipping to prevent deterioration. The DRC Good Arrival Guidelines state that melons can have a maximum of 15% total damage, no more than 8% serious damage and no more than 3% decay. The Inspection Report shows that the melons arrived with significantly higher damage—23% for the 6CT melons and 26.5% for the 5CT melons—exceeding the guidelines. Additionally, the Respondent has provided credible evidence that the transportation conditions were normal. Thus, the arbitrator concluded that the Claimant breached the warranty of suitable shipping conditions by sending damaged melons.

V. Has Respondent Provided a Proper Account of Sales Evidencing Prompt and Proper Resale of the Melons?

As the agent handling the melons, the Respondent needed to sell them in a timely manner and provide proper accounting. The Account of Sales, dated February 18, 2013, was challenged by the Claimant for not including sales dates, proper warehousing charges, and supporting freight charges. Upon review, the Account of Sales lacked sales dates but did provide a price breakdown. The Respondent later submitted all requested documents, including invoices for sales on various dates and proof of freight charges. Therefore, the arbitrator concluded that the Respondent’s Account of Sales meets the DRC Trading Standards and shows that the Respondent sold the melons promptly.

VI. Has the Claimant Met Its Burden of Proof Regarding Damages?

The Claimant is entitled to recover a “reasonable price” based on the market value of the product at the time of delivery after deducting allowed costs and expenses related to the sale. If the parties cannot agree on a reasonable price, the results of a prompt and proper sale of the product usually provide the best evidence of its fair value at delivery. This is especially true since the Claimant did not provide relevant market quotes.

As established, the Respondent’s Account of Sales, along with their defence statement, meets the commercial standards in the DRC and confirms that the Respondent promptly and appropriately resold the melons. The Respondent’s Account of Sales shows a gross return of $5,109.80 from selling the melons, which is about 71% of the initial invoice price of $7,221.25. These gross profits align with the damage percentages confirmed by inspection reports. Therefore, the arbitrator concluded that the Claimant had not met their burden of proof regarding damages linked to the Respondent’s gross sales profits from the melons.

Regarding the expenses the Respondent deducted, the DRC allows for deductions of “appropriate and usual sales charges and expenses directly incurred in handling” the product. Here, there is no evidence that the parties made any agreement about which charges or expenses could be deducted from gross sales profits. The Account of Sales shows the Respondent deducted $274.51 for inspection fees, $23.50 for temperature monitoring fees, and $3,700.00 for transportation fees related to selling the melons. The arbitrator found that these charges relating to the handling of the melons were well-documented and appropriate. Therefore, the arbitrator concluded these expenses were correctly deducted from the gross sales revenue.

On the other hand, the Respondent also deducted $1,344.12 for storage fees. Since storage fees (essentially storage charges) would have been incurred regardless of whether the melons met condition requirements, these storage fees will be denied.

Based on the above, the arbitrator concluded that the Respondent could deduct a total of $3,998.01, leaving the Claimant with a net refundable amount of $1,111.79. Because this decision results in a net recovery for the Claimant instead of a net loss as reported initially in the Account of Sales, the arbitrator further concluded that the Respondent was not entitled to offset the initially reported loss of $232.33 with another transaction, meaning they must refund this amount to the Claimant. This will be calculated as a gross return to the Claimant of $1,344.12.

Article 48(1)(i) allows the arbitrator to issue an award for fair compensation when deemed appropriate. In this case, given that the Respondent sold the melons promptly and appropriately, they are entitled to reasonable compensation for doing so. The Respondent’s Account of Sales does not indicate that they deducted any commission from gross sales profits. Even though the Respondent did not request an order to retain a fair commission, the arbitrator concluded that such an order is appropriate for fairness in this case. A commission rate of 10% on gross sales revenue is common in the agricultural industry and is suitable here.

Article 53(1)(c) of the Mediation and Arbitration Rules of the DRC allows the arbitrator to allocate the responsibility for costs. Since the arbitrator had determined that the net sales revenue is owed to the Claimant, the arbitrator found that the Respondent is responsible for half of the Claimant’s costs, or $300.00.

AB#19030 CHART

ARBITRATOR’S SUMMARY DECISION:

The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant $1,133.32 within 30 days from the date of this Decision and Award.

DRC COMMENTS:

In this case, the arbitrator considered the results of the private inspection report to be the condition of the product upon arrival. The Claimant agreed that the Respondent would handle the product after the private inspection was shared without any objections to the findings documented in the report or the fact that it was a private inspection. For the reasons previously discussed and because the private inspection complied with the DRC Inspection Standards, the arbitrator concluded that the private inspection report would serve as credible evidence of the product’s condition upon arrival.

Another important factor in this case is the change in contract terms. It is common practice for the parties to negotiate new contract terms when the buyer receives a load in deteriorated condition. It is essential to note that when there is a disagreement between parties regarding the terms discussed, and there is no written evidence to support one party’s claims, each party bears the burden of proof for their respective arguments. The DRC encourages its members to use terms that are defined in our Trading Standards, such as “open price,” Price After Sale (PAS),” and “consignment,” to avoid interpreting vague terms such as “handling,” “protection,” or any other term not defined.

Any and all unusual agreements, such as private inspections and restrictive contract terms like “consignment,” need to be Discussed, Understood & Agreed Upon.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

To access the full redacted arbitration decision, click here

Receiver Duties: Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards s.10 (2)(b)(ii)

Good Inspection Guidelines for Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC)

Solutions Newsletter Articles:

Categories
SOLUTIONS

Unpaid Arbitration Award… Now what?

Some members have undergone the arbitration process, and only a few have encountered an unfulfilled award. 90% of the arbitration cases administered by DRC are satisfied as decided by the arbitrator. Rarely are there cases of an unpaid arbitration award. Causes may include the losing party declaring bankruptcy, filing for protection under the court, or debtors disappearing and leaving no assets behind.

When you receive an arbitration decision in your favour, and the losing party does not want to pay it, there are steps you should take. Contact the DRC immediately, as we may take disciplinary actions against the defaulting party, which could include termination of membership. A second step would be for you to register and enforce the arbitration award with the courts.

The courts of the countries signatory to the New York Convention of 1958 and subsequent conventions regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in court (172 Contracting States) are obligated to recognize and enforce these awards. The DRC does not accept members from countries not signatories to the New York Convention or other international treaties regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

While it requires a lawyer to register and enforce the award by the court, this process is simple. The DRC will provide documents to enforce the award in court to your lawyer of choice. These documents usually include the arbitration agreement, the arbitration decision and award, and sometimes, the arbitration rules of the administering body (DRC). This process can last a couple of months and will result in a decision from the court.

Please remember that we are here to support and assist our members. If you have any questions or concerns, contact the DRC Help Desk.

Categories
SOLUTIONS

Membership Update for October, 2024

New Members  | Membership Change of Status 

Welcome new members!

We are pleased to welcome the following 15 new members in October 2024. Here’s a list of who they are:

ANNAN ECOMMERCE INC., BC, Canada
CANMAR PRODUCE (A d/b/a of 2604455 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
CHARLES JOHNSON COMPANY, NM, United States
FOODSUP INC., ON, Canada
FRESHWAY FOODS (A d/b/a of Fresh Unlimited, Inc.), OH, United States
GOLDEN OASIS INC., ON, Canada
HARVEST CENTRAL INC. CA, United States
IPPOLITO INTERNATIONAL, LP, CA, United States
LAKESIDE CELLARS LTD., BC, Canada
LES ALIMENTS FAIGNON INTERNATIONAL, QC, Canada
MAZARIA SARL, Taroudant, Morocco
MINAMI INC., ON, Canada
NILE VALLEY EXPORTS LTD., BC, Canada
PRODUCTORA Y COMERCIALIZADORA AGRICOLA VALENCIA S.A. DE C.V., Michoacan, Mexico
WAZO PACKAGING, Commune Loudaya, Morocco

To view a complete list of active members, click here.

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of October 31st, 2024, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

AGRI IMPORT CANADA CORP. (Also d/b/a Agrimport) ON Canada
ENGEE AND JAYS LTD. (Also d/b/a Engee) ON Canada
ESPERIA GRAPE JUICE LTD. ON Canada
HOOVU CANADA INC. AB Canada
MOROS TRADING INC. QC Canada
PLANET FOODZ CANADA INC. ON Canada
TASTE OF EGYPT (A d/b/a of Hager Abdelhamid) ON Canada
WAWONA PACKING CO., LLC (Also d/b/a Prima® Wawona) CA United States

Click here to view a complete list of inactive members. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

For details regarding a change in status, don’t hesitate to contact our Helpdesk.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. The DRC is a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace.

In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 13 countries outside North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a DRC member.

In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

The DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million to date. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation/mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

For more information about memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

Categories
SOLUTIONS

Arbitration Decision Brief: Dispute Over Produce Quality and Inspection Results

In this dispute, the arbitrator determines that the inspection conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), while considering the Claimant’s concerns about product integrity, proves that the shipment did not meet contract terms, thereby entitling the Respondent to damages.

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has been creating a series of articles summarizing past arbitration decisions. These articles will help members understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in a dispute.

The DRC Dispute R&S states that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is as administrator of the arbitration process; the DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.

ABSTRACT

The arbitration decision brief relates to a dispute between parties from the United States and Canada over the quality of the product and the reliability of CFIA’s inspection results. This dispute arises from concerns about the compromised integrity of the shipment before inspection.

Based on the findings, the arbitrator determined that the integrity of the load was compromised before the CFIA inspection was performed. Since there was no other evidence showing the Claimant breached the contract, the Respondent was responsible for paying the adjusted invoice price and the arbitration commencement fee.

This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.

CASE

DRC File #20579 – Parties Domiciled – United States and Canada

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant sold the Respondent one (1) truckload of limes, which included 60 cartons of 175-count limes from Mexico at USD$21.00 per carton (totalling USD$1,260.00) and 300 cartons of 200-count limes from Mexico at USD$22.00 per carton (totalling USD$6,600.00), for a total free on board (FOB) invoice price of USD$7,860.

The load was shipped from McAllen, Texas, to the Respondent in Toronto, Ontario, on March 3, 2020, and arrived on March 8, 2020.

On March 9, 2020, the CFIA inspected 300 cartons of 200-count limes. The inspection found that the limes were affected by 17% permanent defects (12% blanching, 2% oil spots, and 3% scars) and 25% condition defects (4% decay, 17% yellow colour, and 4% skin breakdown). Additionally, the inspection noted that the product’s temperature ranged from 10.8°C to 11°C, and nearly all of the decay was accompanied by mould.

The Respondent reported selling 50 cartons of the 200-count limes at CAD$21.00 per carton and 250 cartons of the 200-count limes at CAD$22.00 per carton.

Respondent issued a cheque (No. 59147) dated March 26, 2020, payable to the Claimant in the amount of USD$3,705.00. This amount included payment at the contract price of USD$21.00 per carton for the 60 cartons of 175-count limes and payment at USD$8.15 per carton for the 300 cartons of 200-count limes. However, the Claimant did not accept this cheque and returned it to the Respondent.

Subsequently, the Claimant issued a revised invoice for 60 cartons of 175-count limes at USD$21.00 per carton (totalling $1,260) and 300 cartons of 200-count limes at USD$18.00 per carton (totalling $5,400), resulting in a total invoice price of USD$6,660.

In its Statement of Claim, the Claimant acknowledges being in breach of the 200-count limes based on the CFIA inspection results. Consequently, the Claimant offered a reduction of US$4.00 per carton on the price of the limes and adjusted the invoice accordingly. However, the Claimant is uncertain whether the inspection only covers the limes from the current shipment. The Claimant suspects limes from a previous shipment to the Respondent were mixed with those from the current shipment and presented to the inspector for inspection. Therefore, the Claimant is seeking payment in full of the revised invoice price of US$6,660.00 for the limes.

IIn its Statement of Defense to Statement of Claim, the Respondent points out that the timely inspection revealed a 42% average defect rate, causing the 200-count limes to fail to meet the Good Delivery Standards. The Respondent denies any tampering with the inspection. The limes that failed inspection were handled through price after sale (PAS), resulting in a return of US$8.15 per carton to the Claimant. The Respondent states it had no issues with the 175-count limes and attempted to pay the Claimant the full purchase price of US$21.00 per carton.

SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING

The main issue that the arbitrator needs to address is whether the CFIA inspection, considering the product identity concerns raised by the Claimant, establishes that the 200-count limes in the shipment did not comply with the contract requirements, thereby entitling Respondent to damages.

The Claimant states that when the limes in question arrived at the Respondent’s warehouse on Sunday, March 8, 2020, the Respondent informed that the limes were in poor condition and sent photos of the limes to the Claimant. According to the Claimant, the photos showed limes from a previous order shipped to the Respondent on February 20, 2020. When asked about the photos, the Claimant says the Respondent insisted the photos were of the limes that had just arrived despite the date tags indicating otherwise. To resolve the issue, the Claimant requested the Respondent to arrange for a CFIA inspection of the limes.

The Respondent confirms that after the shipment’s arrival and upon finding the limes in poor condition, photos of the limes were sent to the Claimant as requested. The Respondent explains that due to a technological error, a single photo of 175-count limes was initially sent to the Claimant, but this was promptly corrected by contacting the Claimant by email and telephone. The Respondent further states that although the Claimant acknowledged the new pictures, they continued to deny their validity.

The Respondent submitted a copy of the photo of the 175-count limes, which bears a label with the handwritten date “02-20-20.” The file contains a number of other photos, some of which are the digital photos taken by the CFIA inspector and some of which are the photos taken by the Respondent.

One photo shows two pallets with cut straps, and the cartons appear to have been moved around. In the picture on the right pallet is a carton labelled “HB533” and another labelled “HB094.” Other photos show that “HB533” is linked to purchase order number #87564, which is related to the limes in question. However, the purchase order number associated with “HB094” cannot be determined from the documents submitted.

The file includes a photo of a carton labelled with a QR code and the number “TRO023024021,” which matches the number on the inspection certificate under “Marks on Packages.” Another photo shows a carton of limes labelled HB533 strapped to a carton of limes with a QR code and a number that is unclear but seems to read “TRO047057013.” This number is different from “TRO023024021.” This suggests that the number on the inspection certificate differs from the number found on a carton strapped to a carton of limes from the shipment in question. This supports the Claimant’s argument that some of the cartons made available to be inspected by the CFIA were from a different shipment of limes.

The CFIA inspection certificate shows defect percentages ranging from 0 to 10% for decay, 0 to 8% for skin breakdown, and 2 to 34% for yellow colour. The presence of sample cartons with little or no defects combined with those showing a significant percentage of the same defect may indicate a non-homogeneous load.

Based on the observations, the integrity of the load was compromised before the CFIA inspection, making it impossible to determine with reasonable certainty that all 300 cartons of 200-count limes covered by the inspection were from the March 3, 2020, shipment in dispute. Therefore, the inspection cannot be used to determine if the 300 cartons of limes in question complied with the contract requirements. As no other evidence shows that the Claimant breached the contract, the Respondent is liable to the Claimant for the limes it accepted at the adjusted invoice price of US$6,660.00 and the US$600.00 arbitration commencement fee.

ARBITRATOR’S SUMMARY DECISION

The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of US$6,660.00, plus the US$600.00 filing fee, within 30 days from the date of this Decision and Award.

DRC COMMENTS

This case shows us that even when a request and performance of a government inspection is made in a timely manner, elements or actions can still make these quality inspection reports insufficient to demonstrate that the product arrived in a deteriorated condition.

The DRC will accept inspection reports issued by the USDA and CFIA as prima facie evidence of the product’s quality and condition at the time the inspection takes place. However, it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the right product is inspected or that the inspection is performed according to the contract terms between the parties, such as with the correct grade standard or that the product being inspected pertains to the transaction’s lot numbers.

In this case, since the inspection showed that the inspected product belonged to different shipments, this undermined the applicant’s credibility when making the correct product available for inspection. Therefore, while the inspection results show the product inspected failed to meet DRC Good Arrival Guidelines, the arbitrator concluded that the compromised integrity of the shipment invalidated it as evidence of the Claimant’s breach of contract.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

To access the full redacted arbitration decision, click here.

Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation Trading Standards – Receiver Duties, Section 10.2.(b)(ii)

Dealing with a Bad Load? Your options as a Buyer/Receiver Revealed.

Good Inspection Guidelines for Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC)

Categories
Uncategorized

Membership Update for September, 2024

Welcome new members!

We are pleased to welcome the following 17 new members in September 2024. Here’s a list of who they are:

ALGRO FARMS INC., ON, Canada
ARROWLEAF CELLARS INC. (Also d/b/a Arrowleaf Cellars), BC, Canada
BURROWING OWL VINEYARDS LTD. (Also d/b/a Burrowing Owl Estate), BC, Canada
CANNEBERGES BIELER INC., QC, Canada
CLASSIC SALADS LLC., CA, United States
DAY’S CENTURY GROWERS INC., BC, Canada
EN TERRE VINEYARDS LTD. (Also d/b/a Terravista Vineyards), BC, Canada
EXPORTACIONES MEYER LIMITADA, Curico, Chile
FOOLISH WINE INC. (Also d/b/a Foolish Wine), BC, Canada
FRESH PLANTS INC., GA, United States
FRESHGO INC. (Also d/b/a FreshGo), AB, Canada
GRACE’S CHOICE INC., ON, Canada
LA FABRIQUE ST-GEORGE INC., BC, Canada
LA TERRE CULTIVÉE DISCREET INC. / DISCREET FARMLAND INC., QC, Canada
THERAPY VINEYARDS LTD. (Also d/b/a Therapy Vineyards & Inn), BC, Canada
TMG LOGISTICS INC., BC, Canada
VALLEY COMMONS WINERY LTD. (Also d/b/a Stoneboat Vineyards), BC, Canada

To view a complete list of active membersclick here.

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of September 30, 2024, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

1022358 BC LTD., BC, Canada
ANUSAYA FRESH CANADA LTD., BC, Canada
BERRY PEOPLE LLC, CA, United States
CATAB IMPORT INC. (Also d/b/a Catab), BC, Canada
CGF INTERNATIONAL (Faisant également affaire sous Fritzner Pierre), QC, Canada
GLEZ FRESH (A d/b/a of 14111648 Canada Inc.), AB, Canada
K&D TRADING INTERNATIONAL INC. (Also d/b/a KD Trading), BC, Canada
LE SOLEIL INTERNATIONAL INC., ON, Canada
MAEN CANADA INC., ON, Canada
MEN’S FARMING INC., ON, Canada
MNH TRADERS INC., ON, Canada
NEW BOMBAY IMPORTS INC., BC, Canada
RENSO FOODS (A d/b/a of 15095875 Canada Inc.), BC, Canada
S. S FOOD TRADING (Also d/b/a 1129977 B.C. Ltd.), BC, Canada
SCARLA FRUIT (Faisant également affaire sous 9492-9122 Québec Inc.), QC, Canada
THIS AND THAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, BC, Canada

To view a complete list of inactive members, click here. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

For details regarding a change in status, don’t hesitate to contact our Helpdesk.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. The DRC is a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace.

In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 13 countries outside North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a DRC member.

In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

To date, the DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation/mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

For more information about memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

Categories
SOLUTIONS

Claiming Damages: The Power of an Itemized Account of Sales

When dealing with quality or condition issues in the produce industry, providing an account of sales is the most efficient method to demonstrate how the product was handled when there is a breach of contract. If you need to claim damages, it’s good business practice to be ready to provide an Itemized Account of Sales. This detailed account must include the date of sale, quantity for each item sold, the price for each sale related to the load in question, and applicable expenses connected to the breach of contract, such as freight on board (FOB) transactions, the cost of the inspection, brokerage fees, and any other agreed expense. Documenting this information is key to proving your case. It displays the net returns and helps identify if the load was handled properly.

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC), a trusted authority in the produce industry, emphasizes the importance of an Itemized Account of Sales in consignment transactions. It is the main requirement a consignee must submit to the consignor. However, we recommend that every buyer or receiver be ready to provide one if they need to claim damages or resolve a problem.

If an Itemized Account of Sales is unavailable and the method used to provide a return is not verifiable or satisfactory, be aware that other methods can be used to determine the fair value of the product that can be used. This flexibility means you can sometimes reduce the invoice value by the percentage of defects on the federal inspection, which may or may not represent actual losses.

DRC Trading Standards under section 6 indicate that “Sales Tickets/Invoices” shall be filed or stored for two years. If your client challenges the Itemized Account of Sales in an arbitration process, you may be asked by the arbitrator to produce the “Sales Tickets.” The sales tickets and expenses should match your Itemized Account of Sales information.

There are three different options for handling products received in deteriorated condition. Each option has its reporting requirements for submitting an account of sales. These options cannot be mixed in a single account of sale:

  1. Consignment or Open Sales, including Price After Sales (PAS).
  2. Damages (for breach of contract when parties cannot agree on terms of handling).
    – USDA Market News or Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Infohort available.
    – USDA Market News or Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Infohort not available.
  3. Repacking or Regrading, also known as Labor and Shrink.

Here is a sample template of each Itemized Account of Sales for your reference.

For any questions or clarification about itemizing the account of sales, the DRC Help Desk is here to support you.

Categories
SOLUTIONS

Membership Update for August, 2024

New Members List | Membership Change in Status 

Welcome new members!

We are pleased to welcome the following 23 new members in August 2024. Here’s a list of who they are: 

50TH PARALLEL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BC, Canada
9499-6527 QUEBEC INC., QC, Canada
ARTUS BOTTLING LTD., BC, Canada
AVO SELECT S.A. DE C.V. (Also d/b/a Avocado Zapotlan / Agro Gonamex), Jalisco, Mexico
COLOREXA SAC, Lima, Peru
DEEP ROOTS WINERY LTD. (Also d/b/a Deep Roots), BC, Canada
DIRTY LAUNDRY VINEYARD LTD., BC, Canada
EARLCO WINES LTD. (Also d/b/a Three Sisters Winery), BC, Canada
ELYSIA VINEYARD LTD. (Also d/b/a Lightning Rock Winery), BC, Canada
FANCY PAK BRAND (A d/b/a of 11750569 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada
FRUIT FUSION INTERNATIONAL INC., QC, Canada
I-DEFENSE INC., QC, Canada
LA FRENZ ESTATE WINERY LTD., BC, Canada
LA PYRAMIDS ET LA SPHINX INC., ON, Canada
LANGE FRESH SALES, INC. (Also d/b/a Lange Fresh Sales), MO, United States
MARIONETTE WINERY LTD., BC, Canada
MAVERICK ESTATE WINERY INC., BC, Canada
MCINTOSH FARMS LTD. (Also d/b/a SpearHead Winery), BC, Canada
NAZCHEL IMPORTS (A d/b/a of Evan James), ON, Canada
O’ROURKE FAMILY VINEYARDS LTD., BC, Canada
RPE CANADA LIMITED, MB, Canada
WESBERT WINERY LTD., BC, Canada
WESTERN FRUIT PACKERS INC., BC, Canada

To view a complete list of active membersclick here.

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of August 31, 2024, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

CANADIAN NORTH GROUP IMPORTS INCORPORATED, ON, Canada
EXPORTADORA CRUZ BAUTISTA SRL, La Vega, Dominican Republic
FRESH VER SAPI DE CV, Veracruz, Mexico
MITTAL IMPEX (A d/b/a of 10517232 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada
PROPUR INC., QC, Canada
ROCKS MILL FARMS, ON, Canada
SEQ MARKETING INC., QC, Canada
VPCUPE INC., ON, Canada

To view a complete list of inactive members, click here. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

For details regarding a change in status, don’t hesitate to connect with our Helpdesk.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. The DRC is a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace.

In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 13 countries outside of North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a DRC member.

In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

To date, the DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation/mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

For more information about memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

Categories
SOLUTIONS

ARBITRATION DECISION BRIEF: ANALYZING RESPONSIBILITY AND COMPLIANCE IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL DISPUTES

In this dispute, the arbitrator determines whether the Respondent was responsible for paying the invoices in their entirety based on the Claimant’s arguments: poor product quality delivered due to non-compliance with temperature instructions, CPT terms and an unacceptable return.

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has been creating a series of articles summarizing past arbitration decisions. These articles will help members understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in a dispute.

The DRC Dispute R&S states that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies, are not included. A reminder that the DRC’s sole role is as administrator of the arbitration process; the DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.

ABSTRACT

The arbitration decision brief relates to a dispute between parties from Mexico and Canada over the quality and compliance of avocado shipments. The Claimant argued that the Respondent be responsible for paying the full invoices as the avocados were shipped in excellent condition according to Codex Alimentarius standards and that the Respondent failed to follow temperature instructions for transit.

The arbitrator’s analysis focused on the adherence to DRC’s Good Arrival Guidelines and the inspection results provided by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Furthermore, it was noted that the Codex Alimentarius standards for avocados were not discussed or agreed upon between the buyer and the seller, thus making the DRC rules determinative.
Based on the findings, it was determined that the Respondent was not responsible for paying the invoices in their totality. However, the decision was made in favour of the Claimant, highlighting the importance of properly handling the product received in a distressed condition.

This summary provides an essential overview of the arbitration decision and its implications for international commercial disputes.

CASE: DRC File #20948 – Parties Domiciled – Mexico and Canada
SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The Claimant sold the Respondent three (3) loads of avocados on CPT (Carriage Paid To) Laredo, Texas, terms in October and November 2021. All three loads were loaded at origin onto Mexican-registered trucks, which crossed into the United States at the Laredo port of entry. From there, the cargoes continued their transit onward to Montréal, Canada after cross-docking. The value of each load was US$44,480, US$47,040, and US$44,128, respectively.

All three shipments were inspected by the CFIA in a timely manner, showing the following results, which failed DRC’s Good Arrival Guidelines:

Defect First Shipment Second Shipment  Third Shipment
Discoloration 19% 22% 23%
Scars 5% n/a n/a

Following the inspections, the Respondent offered the Claimant two options: move the cargo to a different receiver or allow the Respondent to handle the cargo for the shipper’s account. The Respondent proceeded to sell these three shipments to one of its clients, which yielded proceeds net of freight, inspection, clearing and lost profits of US$20,286.65. The Claimant was dissatisfied with this and demanded full payment for all three shipments.

SUMMARY OF ARBITRATOR’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

The Claimant argues they should receive the full FOB (Freight on Board) invoice value based on their five principal arguments. Each of these were then addressed by the arbitrator as follows:

1. The Claimant shipped excellent quality fruit according to Codex Alimentarius standards.

For avocados, the DRC Good Arrival Guidelines for products arriving in Canada stand at 15% total defects, 8% serious damage and 3% decay. Exceeding any of these three maximum values based on an inspection performed by CFIA personnel proves that the product did not meet DRC’s Good Arrival Guidelines. For each of the three shipments under review in this dispute, total defects exceeded the 15% threshold. They thus failed to meet DRC’s Good Arrival Guidelines.

The Codex Alimentarius standards for avocados speak only in general terms regarding the minimum quality requirements and state that Class I avocados should have only “slight defects in shape and colouring.” The percentages identified in the CFIA inspection reports certainly exceed this standard. In addition, Codex standards were never discussed between the buyer and the seller; therefore, they cannot be considered to prevail over the default provisions of the DRC Good Arrival Guidelines.

2. The Respondent failed to follow the Claimant’s temperature instructions for the transit from Laredo to Montréal. This failure led to surface discolouration upon arrival, as noted in CFIA’s inspection reports.

To be proven, this contention would have needed to demonstrate conclusively that the Respondent failed to follow sound temperature practices during the transit between Laredo and Montréal and that this failure alone was responsible for the surface discoloration upon arrival noted in the inspection reports.

While the possible role of cold airflow, as the Claimant’s expert witness emphasized, is only one of several potential causes for the discoloration discovered during an inspection in Canada.

3. By stating in its invoice that its terms of sale were CPT Laredo, the Claimant maintains that its responsibility for the quality of its shipments transferred wholly and completely from seller to buyer at the moment of transshipment in Laredo.

The Claimant states CPT terms on its invoice to the Respondent. Under the International Chamber of Commerce’s Incoterms, its rules for the use of domestic and international commercial terms, Carriage Paid To (CPT) means that

“the seller delivers the goods – – and transfers the risk – – to the buyer by handing the goods over to the carrier contracted by the seller. Once the goods have been delivered to the buyer in this way, the seller does not guarantee that the goods will reach the place of destination in sound condition, in the stated quantity or indeed at all.”

According to DRC Trading Standards, Section 20, transactions characterized as CFR (Cost and Freight), CIP (Cost and Insurance Paid), and CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) sales are to be treated as FOB sales.

CPT transactions would fall under this same treatment, whereby they would be deemed the same as FOB sales, except that the selling price shall include the correct freight charges to the specified intermediate destination (in this case, to Laredo).

4. Based on its post-sale interviews with other Mexican shippers who had collaborated with the Respondent in recent years, the Claimant is of the opinion that the Respondent is guilty of abusive practices as a way to extract price reductions on purchases from Mexican suppliers. 

While this survey of the experiences of Mexican avocado shippers with the Respondent might have been a worthwhile exercise for the Claimant before entering into these three transactions, the arbitrator disinclined to incorporate hearsay as of probative value in the course of this deliberation.

5. Despite the findings of the CFIA inspections, a return which delivers only $0.15 on the dollar is out of proportion and unacceptable.

Of the five arguments raised by the Claimant, the arbitrator finds this argument to be most compelling. Unlike most fresh produce condition problems, lenticel damage becomes less of a problem over time as the natural colour progression proceeds during the maturation cycle. While there are some differences of opinion among experts as to the root causes of lenticel damage, there is universal agreement that it is purely cosmetic and has no adverse effect on the fruit’s internal presentation or eating quality.

Based on the CFIA inspection results, the Respondent would have been within its rights to reject each of these three cargoes entirely.

The Respondent, through its sole customer for these 5,656 cartons of avocados, was able to market the entirety of the three shipments, providing de facto evidence that all portions of these shipments were marketable. The timeliness of these sales, as highlighted by the Claimant, can also be called into question.

Taking as a basis the purchase prices agreed by both parties for each of these three shipments, the arbitrator determined that fair market value, net of total defects and including a 50% addition to incentivize timely sale, would produce the following results:

  First Shipment Second Shipment Third Shipment TOTAL VALUE
FOB, Original Invoice US$44,480.00 US$47,040.00 US$44,128.00 US$135,648.00
Total Defects 24% 22% 23%  
+50% for quick sale 12% 11% 12%  
Total Discount 36% 33% 35%  
Adjusted FOB Value Net of Defects + US$28,467.20 US$31,516.80 US$28,903.84 US$88,887.84
ARBITRATOR’S SUMMARY DECISION:

As to the claim that the Respondent owes the Claimant compensation for failure to make every reasonable effort to market its fruit on a timely basis, the arbitrator finds in favour of the Claimant and orders the Respondent to pay the sum of US$88,887.84 to the Claimant. As to the DRC filing and arbitration fees, the arbitrator ordered the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant for half of this amount, or US$5,152.50.

Calculation of the amount due from the Respondent to the Claimant is as follows:

Less than a reasonable effort to market the fruit US$88,887.84
The Respondent’s share of the arbitration cost US$5,152.50
Total due to the Claimant US$94,040.34

The Respondent was hereby ordered to pay the Claimant US$94,040.34 no later than 30 days from the date of this decision.

DRC COMMENTS:

We strongly recommend our members to be more familiar with the INCOTERMS. Understanding transit risk, whether products are shipped via ground transportation, maritime, or air, can save you from future headaches. INCOTERMS were developed to avoid costly misunderstandings by clarifying the tasks, costs, and risks in the international delivery of goods from sellers to buyers. Failure to understand and agree to these terms can lead to significant financial losses for you and your valuable business partners.

In a FOB transaction, if the buyer/receiver discovers while unloading the product that it has deteriorated, they should load it back into the truck immediately. After that, the buyer/receiver must request a government inspection to retain the right to reject the load. Unloading the truck for any purpose other than making the product accessible for an inspection is deemed an act of acceptance, and rejecting the product is no longer an option unless the shipper accepts the product back.

We understand that selling products in a deteriorated condition can be complicated, but it is also important to recognize that when a product is accepted, the receiver has a greater responsibility to salvage it and minimize the loss. Therefore, if you receive a product that fails to meet contract terms or fails to meet DRC Good Arrival Guidelines, and you don’t feel like you can do a good job salvaging the product, make sure the seller/shipper understands the situation and try to change the terms of the contract to a consignment transaction.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

To access the full redacted arbitration decision, click here.

Incoterms – Q&A’s – North American Terms vs. INCOTERMS
Dealing with a bad load – Options as a buyer/receiver
Accept or reject – Acceptance and Rejection

Categories
SOLUTIONS

Membership Update for July 2024

New Members List | Membership Change in Status 

Welcome new members!

We are pleased to welcome the following 13 new members in July 2024. Here’s a list of who they are: 

1484497 B.C. LTD., BC, Canada
9397-6215 QUÉBEC INC. (Also d/b/a Le Pro 1600), QC, Canada
B&J BENGAG ORCHARDS (A d/b/a of Balbir Bengag, Jasvir Bengag), BC, Canada
EXPORTADORA, INMOBILIARIA, AGRICOLA E INVERSIONES POMPEIA LT, Maule, Chile
GEHRINGER BROS. ENTERPRISES LTD., BC, Canada
GOLDEN GATE TRADE LTD., ON, Canada
GREEN GOLD IMPORT-EXPORT CANADA INC., ON, Canada
JACOB REDEKOP TEICHROEB (Also d/b/a Abarrotes y Refacciones Teichroeb), ON, Canada
JOIE VENTURES INC. (Also d/b/a JoieFarm Winery), BC, Canada
MONETTE PRODUCE LTD., SK, Canada
RIVER STONE ESTATE WINERY INC., BC, Canada
SENSEI FARMS LEAMINGTON ULC, ON, Canada
TERRABELLA WINERIES LTD., BC, Canada

To view a complete list of active membersclick here.

DRC Membership Change in Status

As of July 31st, 2024, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

ANNAN ECOMMERCE INC., BC, Canada
AWR GLOBAL (Also d/b/a 8499055 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada
COMERCIALIZADORA DE FRUTAS DE TACAMBARO, S.A. DE C.V., Michoacan, Mexico
DD ENTERPRISE (A d/b/a of Deepkumar Mistry), ON, Canada
DISTRIBUTION & TRANSPORT RICARDO INC., QC Canada
ECHERI UJCHAKURA PRODUCE (A d/b/a of Arturo Hernandez Villegas), ON, Canada
EL TORREON EXPORT LIMITADA, Ñuble, Chile
FEXINCO INC., ON, Canada
FRESH VER SAPI DE CV, Veracruz, Mexico
HAPPY FARMERS GLOBAL INC., ON, Canada
HARVESTDANCE INTERNATIONAL INC., ON, Canada
IMPORT KARI / KARI IMPORT, QC, Canada
KONKAN IMPORTS INC., ON, Canada
KONOL INDUSTRIES LTD., BC, Canada
MAPLE TREE CANADA INC., ON, Canada
MITTAL IMPEX (A d/b/a of 10517232 Canada Inc.), ON, Canada
NEW ERA PRODUCE LLC, FL, United States
QUAIL H FARMS, LLC, CA, United States
SEALINE TRADING LIMITED, BC, Canada
VANZARO INC., ON, Canada
VENUSCA GLOBAL CORPORATION, ON, Canada
VPCUPE INC., ON, Canada

To view a complete list of inactive members, click here. This list includes members who resigned, were expelled, or were terminated in the last nine months.

For details regarding a change in status, don’t hesitate to connect with our Helpdesk.

About the DRC

The DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. The DRC is a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e., buy, sell, import, export) unless accepted by the regulations. Today, the DRC has members in 16 countries outside of North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a DRC member.

In addition to its Operating Rules and Trading Standards, the DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build members’ knowledge and capacity to avoid or resolve disputes. The DRC provides education, mediation, and arbitration services and can impose sanctions and disciplinary actions on members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

To date, the DRC has resolved claims worth more than $105 million. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation/mediation services. Arbitration awards are court-enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

For more information about memberships, click here or contact our Helpdesk.

Verified by MonsterInsights