Categories
Uncategorized

Withholding payment of an undisputed amount: Tips for Better Business Practices

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) has noticed that, from time to time, a buyer may choose to withhold payment of the undisputed amount when a disagreement on a transaction occurs.

It is not uncommon to see this practice in our industry especially when the parties disagree on a return after the product has failed to meet contract terms and the load has been handled to minimize the loss. It also happens when there is more than one transaction between the parties, one of the invoices is in a dispute, and the other invoices are not paid until the disputed invoiced is resolved.

Here’s what the DRC recommends to buyers and sellers in this situation:

As per the DRC Trading Standards, all members must fulfill their financial obligations by paying their invoices within the agreed payment terms or follow DRC Trading Standards when no payment terms have been agreed. Undisputed invoices cannot be withheld unless the buyer and seller agree otherwise.

In regards to payment of undisputed amounts, the DRC Trading Standards Section 19 subsection 10 states:

“(11) … If there is a dispute concerning a transaction, the foregoing time periods [paragraphs (1) through (10)] for prompt payment apply only to payment of the undisputed amount.”

Paying the undisputed amount is a good business practice and can help you have better customer relationships. Here are some of the benefits:

  1. The disputed amount may become significantly less.
  2. The smaller the amount of a dispute, the easier it is to negotiate a settlement.
  3. Helps avoid situations where the supplier feels like they are being held for ransom. When buyers withhold money that do not belong to them, suppliers may become more reluctant to negotiate a settlement.
  4. Paying the undisputed amount can alleviate financial strain on the seller.
  5. The buyer’s reputation avoids being tarnished in the market.
  6. In the event a dispute reaches an arbitration process, and the arbitrator awards interest, the losing party will pay less interest.

If you want to learn more about payment terms and practices, feel free to contact DRC’s Trading Assistance staff through our Help Desk.

Categories
Uncategorized

CFIA’s Pause on FFV Grade Standards Sparks Concern

The Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC)-led initiative to amend the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) Compendium 2, Canadian Grade Compendium: Volume 2 – Fresh Fruit or Vegetables Grades and Requirements has stalled. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) implemented a pause to the phased updates to individual fresh fruit and vegetable (FFV) grades.

Fresh Produce Alliance (FPA) organizations consisting of the DRC, the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, and the Fruit & Vegetable Growers of Canada were recently advised by CFIA that it will continue to review its priorities and allocate resources to the highest-risk areas.

The CFIA has informed the FPA of their intention to pause work to develop a more efficient model for grades that will facilitate trade, support economic growth, and align with the CFIA’s mandate. They further indicated that they are redirecting resources to prioritize and complete this engagement in a timely manner. The CFIA will continue to engage with the FPA to better understand the role that grade standards play in the marketplace, including the role and value of the standards.

The FPA points out that the pause to phased updates will delay the completion of the grade standards, which are required for Canada to remain competitive and provide Canadians with affordable fresh fruits and vegetables.

The horticultural industry is particularly eager for the proposed changes to be implemented as the pause raises concerns with quickly approaching Test Market Authorizations (TMA) that will expire soon. For instance, a TMA for nectarines is set to expire on July 5, 2024.

While the new stand-alone grade standard for nectarines would address elements of the TMA, an extension may not be possible, and the proposed new standard may not be implemented by July as a result of the pause.

The DRC looks forward to providing further updates and discussion on grade standards at the upcoming FVGC AGM to be held in Ottawa from March 4-7, 2024.

—–

For more information, contact: 

Nicole MacDonald
Communications and Marketing Specialist
Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation 
Email: [email protected]
Ph: +1-613-234-0982

Categories
Uncategorized

Membership Update – January 2024

Welcome new members!

We are pleased to welcome the following 16 new members during the month of January:

15137586 CANADA INC.,  QC, Canada
9481-1676 QUEBEC INC., QC, Canada
ABDELHAFID BETTA, ON, Canada
ALICE FOODS INC., ON, Canada
ALIMENTS KURAS / KURAS FOODS (A d/b/a of 122011 Canada Ltée), QC, Canada
CH DISTRIBUTION INC., ON, Canada
EGYPTIAN CANADIAN PHOENIX LTD., ON, Canada
GRUPO ARJORAN SA DE CV, Michoacán, Mexico
HEALTHY FRESH LLC., AZ, United States
HG PRODUCE LTD., BC, Canada
MOBCHER CANADA (A d/b/a of 9397-6439 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
PURE FLAVOR FARMS LP, ON, Canada
ROYAL TRADE INC, ON, Canada
VANSHI FOODS LTD., BC, Canada
YUZUKI JAPANESE RESTAURANT / YUZUKI FISH MARKET, ON, Canada
ZEUS PRODUCE INC., ON, Canada

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

DRC Membership: change in status

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

AGROFRESH EXPORT CONSORTIUM SL, Valencia, Spain
BELLI FOODS / BELLI DISTRIBUTION (A d/b/a of 9194-3340 Quebec Inc.), QC, Canada
BLEUETS MISTASSINI LTEE, QC, Canada
DELTA FRESH SALES LLC (Also d/b/a Delta Fresh), AZ United States
DUNCAN FAMILY FARMS, LLC., AZ, United States
ECORIPE TROPICALS, INC., FL, United States
ITAL-PLUS JUICE GRAPE LTD., ON, Canada
LES ALIMENTS KIM PHAT (JARRY), QC, Canada
LLERO’S TRADING LTD., ON, Canada
LOTUS TRADE INC. / COMMERCE TRADE INC., QC, Canada
MOONSHINE MAMA’S KITCHENS LTD. (Also d/b/a Moonshine Mama’s), BC, Canada
NATURE DELIGHT INC., BC, Canada
NAVARRO PROEXPORT S.L., Valencia, Spain
OHMEX PRODUCE, ON, Canada
PULPAAMERICA (Faisant également affaire sous 9338-4097 Québec Inc.), QC, Canada
PURE HOTHOUSE FOODS INC. (Affiliated with Pure Flavor Farms LP), ON, Canada
R U P LANKA LTD. (Also d/b/a RUP), ON, Canada
SHAAN TRUCK LINES (A d/b/a of 2350936 Ontario Inc.), ON, Canada
SUN MARK FOODS LTD., ON, Canada
VIVA FRUTA PRODUCTORES S.L., Cadiz, Spain
WHYTE’S FOODS INC. / LES ALIMENTS WHYTE’S INC., QC, Canada
WINDSOR DISTRIBUTING, INC., FL, United States

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

Important note: Following membership termination, the former member remains liable for claims arising prior to their termination if the claim is submitted to the DRC by way of a Notice of Dispute within nine months from when the claim arose or within nine months from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence.

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

To date, the DRC has resolved claims in excess of $105 million dollars. 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
Uncategorized

Meet DRC at Fruit Logistica 2024

If you plan to attend Fruit Logistica in Berlin, Germany, make sure to meet with team members from the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) from February 7-9, 2024. We’ll be happy to discuss our full range of member benefits and services and answer any questions you may have.

As a not-for-profit commercial dispute resolution body, DRC provides harmonized trading standards, education, mediation and arbitration procedures and services to the fresh produce trade. Our goal is to help you avoid and resolve commercial disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner.

If you’re exporting to Canada, keep in mind that Canada’s Safe Food for Canadians Regulations include key trade and commerce requirements for buyers and sellers of fresh fruits and vegetables. Anyone who grows, buys, sells, brokers, or provides transportation services for fresh produce should be a DRC member to reduce financial risk and improve profitability.

Our booth will be in the Canada Pavilion at Hall 23, #A-32. Say hello; we’d be delighted to provide more information about our services. If you know any trade partners who are not members of DRC yet, please encourage them to stop by our booth to discuss the membership benefits. We are excited to meet them and see you there.

——-

More information about the DRC is available at www.fvdrc.com. If you have any questions or comments about this article or would like to speak to a DRC representative, click here. We look forward to speaking with you.

Categories
Uncategorized

Will a thumbs-up emoji lead to a contract?

Sometimes. A Saskatchewan court explains when.

By: Anna Katyk*

In South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land, 2023 SKKB 116 (“South West”), the judge decided that a thumbs-up emoji sent in a text message could mean agreeing to a contract. This happened in a dispute between South West Terminal Ltd. (the “buyer/ South West”) and Achter Land (the “seller/ Achter”), who had done business together for a while, usually contracting in person, through email or by text.

Specifically, the court interpreted the seller’s thumbs-up emoji as accepting the buyer’s offer, despite the seller believing it was merely acknowledging receiving the offer. The court agreed with the buyer, South West, that the emoji meant acceptance and a contract was formed.

This case is instructive for those who use text messaging and other convenient means of communication to do business. It’s a warning that courts can take seriously those who communicate using emojis or short texts.

There were multiple issues before the court, two of which are discussed in this case comment: did the parties intend to form a contract, and was the contract in writing and signed by both parties even though the acceptance was an emoji.

South West and Achter had a longstanding business relationship. They previously contracted approximately 20 times, usually in person but sometimes through email or text messages.

The pandemic swooped in, and the parties stopped meeting in person and began contracting exclusively through email and text.

Four of the contracts between the parties before the disputed contract were concluded through text message, each time with Achter responding from the same cell phone number. This was important.

The first contract concluded through text was when the parties discussed terms by phone, and then South West drafted a paper contract, signed it, took a picture of it, and texted it to Achter with a message that read, “Please confirm terms of durum contract.” Achter texted back, “Looks good”. Achter performed the contract, delivering durum wheat to South West.

The parties concluded three more contracts through text with very similar circumstances. In all three instances, the parties spoke on the phone, South West drafted a contract, signed it and texted a picture to Achter, asking Achter to “please confirm terms of durum contract.” Achter texted back, “Ok”, “Yup,” and “Ok”, respectively. Achter performed all three contracts by delivering durum wheat to South West and never contested these contracts.

The dispute arose from the fifth time the parties texted about a contract.

This time, the parties discussed a flax contract by phone, after which South West drafted the contract, signed it and texted a picture of it to Achter with the message “Please confirm flax contract”. Achter texted back a thumbs-up emoji.

But this time, Achter did not deliver.

Achter took the position that no contract was formed because the thumbs-up was not an acceptance but a mere acknowledgement of receiving South West’s offer.

Achter differentiated between this instance and the previous contracts by pointing to the fact that the grain had not yet been produced, and when dealing with not-yet-produced grain, Achter wouldn’t sign contracts without an Act of God clause. It was unclear from the picture of the contract whether South West included such a clause, and thus Achter was expecting a complete copy of the contract from South West by email or fax before accepting. Achter also argued that because an Act of God clause was essential, the parties had not agreed on all essential terms and could not have formed a contract.

Having regard to the thumbs-up emoji’s common usage, the court deemed the thumbs-up emoji an acceptance. This was because an objective reasonable bystander with all the facts would have concluded that Achter’s emoji was not an acknowledgement of receipt but an acceptance of South West’s offer, much like the previous responses of “Looks good,” “Yup” and “Ok”.

With respect to the certainty of terms, the court was satisfied that the part of the contract South West showed Achter disclosed the substance of the parties’ agreement. The court found that because Achter never informed South West that it would not accept an offer without an Act of God clause, South West was not expected to know this, and the Act of God clause couldn’t have been an essential term without which the contract couldn’t be formed.

A contract was, thus, formed through an emoji.

What does this case tell us?

It revisits some of the longstanding common-law principles. Courts are not restricted to the four corners of the contract and may consider surrounding circumstances, also known as the factual matrix, to determine whether parties intended to form the contract.

A long standing business relationship forms part of the factual matrix.

If a term is essential, this best be communicated to the other party; otherwise, there is a risk the court may not deem it an essential term of the contract.

While Achter’s four previous text message acceptances were curt, they were not emojis. This did not, however, stop the court from finding Achter’s intention to be bound by the thumbs-up emoji it sent to South West in response to the picture of the flax contract.

Will a thumbs-up emoji necessarily form a contract? No, it won’t. Not without a set of circumstances that would lead an objective reasonable bystander to conclude that the thumbs-up emoji is an acceptance. Will it form a contract with enough of the factual matrix lining up to support formation? Maybe.

And it’s not just an emoji that could have led to this outcome. This dispute could have arisen with an “okay”, “alright”, “sounds good”, “great, thanks,” alike. All are equally vague when taken in the abstract, but all are sufficient for acceptance under the right factual matrix.

What’s more, the court deemed the emoji to satisfy not only the in-writing requirement but also the signature requirement. It came from Achter’s phone number and was as good as a signature because it was enough to identify Achter.

Ontario’s Sale of Goods Act (SGA) does not have the same in-writing and signature requirements as the Saskatchewan Sale of Goods Act. In fact, Ontario’s SGA expressly permits oral contracts.

What Ontario does have is the Statute of Frauds. While it only applies to certain contracts, like contracts for the sale of real property, it requires that these contracts be in writing and signed by both parties. The Electronic Commerce Act clarifies that the in-writing and signature requirements are met through email but does not expressly address text messages. Applying the same analysis to a sale of real property, two parties could conclude an agreement of purchase and sale through text message. Perhaps even through an emoji, although the author would caution against it.

___

* Anna Katyk practices commercial litigation and arbitration with a focus on sales law. She can be reached at [email protected].

If you have any questions or comments about this article or would like to speak to a DRC representative, click here. We look forward to speaking with you.

 

Categories
Uncategorized

Breaking Barriers: Resolving Disputes with Non-Members

It is of utmost importance to know that in order to have direct access to DRC’s Dispute Resolution System, companies need to be members of the DRC before any dispute arises. This means that if a dispute arises between two DRC members, they are obligated to use DRC’s Dispute Resolution System to resolve the issue unless they mutually agree otherwise.

What about disputes between a DRC member and a non-member?

According to Article 3 of DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules, these rules apply to any dispute, controversy or claim between a member and one or more non-members where the parties agree in writing to submit their dispute to DRC.

One option is for the two parties to voluntarily sign an arbitration agreement. In addition, one of these two steps must occur; the non-member can either join DRC (application + Membership fee) or pay a flat non-member access fee.

Once the arbitration agreement is signed and one of the two steps is completed by the non-member, DRC’s dispute resolution process can proceed as normal.

Another option is to include a DRC arbitration clause in a contract. An arbitration clause is commonly used in written contracts and requires the parties to resolve any disputes arising out of the contract through DRC’s arbitration process. A DRC arbitration clause allows the parties to resolve a dispute outside of the courts in a more timely and cost-effective manner. If the losing party fails to comply with the arbitrator’s decision and award, the award can be enforced in the appropriate court of law.

DRC recommends inserting the following arbitration clause into their contracts:

“Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be submitted to and finally settled by arbitration administered by the Fruit & Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation in accordance with its published rules and procedures. Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.”

Important things to consider when using a DRC arbitration clause in a contract:

  1. At least one of the parties needs to be a DRC member.
  2. If the non-member decides they don’t want to join DRC or pay the non-member access fee, the member can pay the non-member access fee.
  3. If there is a dispute over the validity of the contract, in order to enforce the arbitration clause, the parties would need to go to court first to have a judge decide if the contract is valid.

If you have a signed contract, which includes the DRC Arbitration clause and find yourself in a dispute, contact our office. We will guide you through the next steps to initiate the DRC’s Dispute Resolution process.

To avoid complications of having the DRC involved in a dispute, we encourage companies and their commercial partners to join the DRC prior to beginning a business relationship. If your customer becomes a member, both of you will be automatically protected in a contract dispute.

If you have any questions or comments about this article or would like to speak to a DRC representative, click here. We look forward to speaking with you. 

 

Categories
Uncategorized

Membership Update – December 2023

Welcome new members!

We are pleased to announce that between December 1st and 31st, 2023, the DRC welcomed the following 13 new members:

15293707 CANADA INC. | AB, Canada
ALMOCAN MÉDITERRANÉEN INC. | QC, Canada
BILL’S FRUIT MARKET INC. | ON, Canada
COMMERCE DRIM INC. | QC Canada
FRUTELLA FOR FOOD INDUSTRY S.A.E. | Giza, Egypt
GLOBAL BIO INC. | QC, Canada
IMPORTATION AVOCAN INC. (Faisant également affaire sous Avocan) | QC, Canada
INDIAN DELIBITES INC. | ON, Canada
KARIM SAGHI | QC, Canada
ONLY THE REALEST SERVICES INC. | ON, Canada
RENNIE BROS INC. | PE, Canada
TRANSPORT JUSTINT IMPORT-EXPORT INC. | QC, Canada
YOUDESSE ALIMENTS (Faisant également affaire sous 9300-3580 Québec Inc.) | QC, Canada

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

DRC Membership: change in status

As of December 31, 2023, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

AMCO PRODUCE INC. | ON, Canada
J. F. PRODUCE INC. | ON,  Canada
LAKESIDE PRODUCE INC. | ON, Canada
NATURIPE FARMS IMPORTS INC. | FL, United States
SOCIEDAD AGRICOLA SATURNO S.A. | Lima, Peru
VISION IMPORT GROUP, LLC | NJ, United States

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

Important note: Following membership termination, the former member remains liable for claims arising prior to their termination if the claim is submitted to the DRC by way of a Notice of Dispute within nine months from when the claim arose or within nine months from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence.

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

To date, the DRC has resolved claims in excess of $105 million dollars. 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
Uncategorized

Stay Connected with the DRC on Social Media!

Did you know the DRC actively engages with the fresh fruit and vegetable industry on three social media platforms? We have a presence on LinkedIn, Facebook, and X (Twitter), and we have been increasing our outreach to share industry news, upcoming events, and access to insightful articles.

We strive to keep the industry informed and educated through press releases, reports on grade standards, updates to import and export regulations, case studies, B2B best practice tips, member updates, and so much more. We’ve found that social media is an excellent resource for connecting with a larger audience that goes beyond borders. The DRC appreciates the opportunity to engage with industry members and share insightful information while building relationships.

If you have not already, join us on social media. We’d love to hear from you.

###

For media inquiries, please contact: 

Nicole MacDonald
Communications & Marketing Specialist
Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation
Telephone: 613-234-0982
Email: [email protected]

Categories
Uncategorized

Romaine Lettuce from the United States

Navigating Regulatory Import Requirements and Contractual Obligations

Romaine lettuce from the United States (U.S.) is in full swing. It is important to remind the industry to be informed of Canadian regulatory import requirements and aware of contract expectations for this commodity.

Multiple cases of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses in Canada have been linked back to romaine lettuce from specific areas of California in the past. Therefore, adhering to regulatory import requirements is essential. On July 20, 2023, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) issued a notification outlining Temporary Import Requirements for Romaine Lettuce from the United States.

These Canadian requirements affect any romaine lettuce and/or salad mixes containing romaine lettuce from a recurring geographical area associated with the U.S. outbreaks. This area encompasses the California Salinas Valley counties of Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Benito, and Monterey.

When importing romaine lettuce and/or salad mixes containing romaine lettuce into Canada, Canadians are required to do the following:

  1. Provide proof that the product does not originate from the counties mentioned above.
  2. If the shipment originated from the counties mentioned above, an attestation form and Certificates of Analysis for each shipment must demonstrate that the romaine lettuce does not contain detectable levels of E. coli O157:H7.

It is common knowledge that U.S. growers/shippers include exclusionary language in their invoices. For example, “bruising and/or discoloration following bruising” would be inserted. This is an essential aspect that buyers need to be aware of. While buyers in the U.S. are familiar with this exclusion, it doesn’t necessarily automatically apply to other jurisdictions like Canada (unless it can be proved that this exclusion was agreed).

It is imperative to look closely and double-check all documents you are receiving, including all contract terms that were agreed upon. If you notice a wording or term you are unfamiliar with or did not agree to, immediately bring it to your supplier’s attention, preferably in writing.

In the event of a dispute, the burden is on the parties to prove that all terms were discussed, Understood, and Agreed Upon (DUA). If you buy romaine lettuce from the U.S., you must be aware of any exclusionary language used and double-check all documentation. As best practice, verifying documentation to ensure contract terms are as agreed should not be limited to romaine lettuce only. Take the necessary precautions and avoid potential disputes by reading and understanding all documentation accurately.

If you have any questions regarding the article, or you have media enquiries, contact: 

Nicole MacDonald
Communications & Marketing Specialist
Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation
[email protected]
1-613-234-0982

Categories
Uncategorized

Disposing of a Shipment with No Commercial Value

There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the responsibilities of a buyer or receiver in cases where they need to dispose of a portion or the entirety of a shipment that no longer holds any commercial value upon receipt. Section 9 of the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) Trading Standards clarifies:

“Reasonable cause for destroying or disposing of any produce exists when the commodity has no commercial value … The term “commercial value” means any value that a commodity may have for any purpose that can be ascertained by the exercise of due diligence without unreasonable expense or loss of time. When produce is being handled for or on behalf of another person, proof as to the quantities of produce destroyed or discarded in excess of five percent of the shipment shall be provided by procuring an official certificate regarding the actual disposition of the discarded produce…”

An “official certificate” is a federal inspection indicating a very high percentage of condition defects demonstrating no commercial value. It can now be discarded.

For instance, a buyer receives 4,000 cartons of mangoes in poor condition. An inspection by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is requested and performed in a timely manner, showing 2% decay, 12% bruises and 5% shrivelling. Since the mangoes have more than 15% total defects, it means the shipment does not comply with DRC’s Good Arrival Guidelines. In this case, the buyer can choose to renegotiate the contract or claim damages.

After salvaging the product, the buyer submits an account of sales showing each lot sale less expenses. In the sales section of the liquidation report, 700 cartons were reported as discarded.

Should the buyer have requested an inspection showing the mangoes’ condition before discarding them?

The answer to this question is “Yes”. The buyer discarded 700 of the 4,000 cartons received. In other words, 17% of the entire load was disposed of, which exceeds the 5% threshold.

It is important to note that when disposing or destroying more than 5% of a load, an official certificate is required to demonstrate that the product has no commercial value. A dump certificate alone is not sufficient evidence, as it only indicates the amount of product disposed of or destroyed. Therefore, a government inspection is necessary to comply with regulations.

For more information or media inquiries, please contact: 

Nicole MacDonald
Communications & Marketing Specialist
Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation
[email protected]
1-613-234-0982

Verified by MonsterInsights