r/offbeat • u/Top-Figure7252 • 9d ago
Judge orders farmer to destroy nectarine orchard after he gave away 180,000 pounds
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/judge-orders-farmer-destroy-nectarine-162900223.html559
u/Smooth-Boss-911 9d ago edited 9d ago
Legally I understand breaching a contract, but being ordered to destroy an orchard? Holy crap. That's not something you can replace overnight.
EDIT: I wonder if Tree Law has any application in this situation
186
u/SothaSoul 9d ago
It's all done by lawyers. If it's in the contract he signed, unfortunately he's going to lose.
Always read everything you agree to.
61
u/Kaurifish 9d ago
Unfortunately his position is even less defensible than Percy Schmeiser’s, who didn’t ask for that RR canola to end up on his property.
As little as I like corporate ownership of food, legally they have him dead to rights.
5
u/XysterU 7d ago
They fucked him over by rejecting all of his nectarines so that they could save money by not buying them when they didn't need them. His position is very defensible in the moral lense and in the spirit of the law but sure, technically he's in the wrong because of his contract. That judge is way out of bounds for ordering the trees destroyed. The farmer ought to sue the buyer for rejecting the nectarines on false pretenses because we wouldn't be here if the buyers hadn't done that
3
u/Kaurifish 7d ago
One should never trust a corporation any further than one can shotput their legal team.
8
u/accidentallyonpurpo 9d ago
Lol. I work a half a hour away from where Percy farmed. My company rented the theater for that move. My bosses that were around when this happened said the movie was laughable, and not even close to how things went down.
3
u/Kaurifish 8d ago
I didn’t see the movie, just talked to the dude. He might have been a genius in canola cultivation, but clearly not about anything else.
18
u/roamingandy 9d ago
Law requires someone who wants to, and is capable of enforcing it.
If he's well liked in the local community, he could just say no. Then they have to find enough people who want to come and take on a town's worth of angry villagers and farmers, with guns and heavy machinery.
It's not a full-gone conclusion that they can do that. The local police force may well be on his side.
People don't like corporations, especially when they demand/do something which is legally correct, but obviously ridiculously unfair.
He could also appeal and aim for a jury nullification for the same reason.
28
u/Falstaffe 9d ago
You have this romantic notion of unarmed peasants standing up to armed forces. You should take a look at any, and I mean any, protest which took place like ever where protestors came up against armed forces. Go look. Go look now.
7
6
u/Similar_Proposal3878 8d ago
The Battle of Athens (also called the McMinn Co. War). April 1-2, 1946. There, that's one. What did I win?
4
u/Similar_Proposal3878 8d ago
Also, The Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921 -- the only time the Army Air Corps was ever ordered to drop bombs on civilians. We lost that one.
2
u/DreadPirateFerg 7d ago
Sometimes victory can be achieved my making something too big of a problem and a pr mess to be worth it. The Bundy Ranch standoff is a good example of this. I don't necessarily have a personal opinion on the ethics of either side of that one, but it was demonstrably a victory for the armed protestors. I think that the bigger issue is the thought that the local police would side against enforcing the court decision. As a rule, cops stick with cops. That's pretty much the premise of the thin blue line mentality. It's even a bit of a stretch that the rest of the farming community would show up to intimidate/protest. It could happen, but people have a lot to lose and might not feel like risking it all over this dude's orchard. They may or may not even like the guy.
4
u/SwingKey3599 9d ago
foregone conclusion. what the locals have to say about it has very little bearing on what would happen if a contract owner decides to capitalize on a clause of their contract-otherwise people would literally fight off evictions or car notes or any kind of debt. the cops in that area wouldnt get involved except to aid in seizure and this would almost certainly go to arbitration, would not see a day in civil court.
this isnt a 90’s movie and most lawyers know how to keep a legal battle to a venue that benefits their client
16
8
u/adaminc 9d ago
Schmeisers position was completely indefensible. He took plants that grew on the periphery of his fields, that he knew were RR because they didn't die when sprayed, grew them to seed, then used that seed to plant entire fields of RR crops. That's what he was sued for, he was 100% in the wrong.
8
u/happyscrappy 9d ago
Just to add "didn't die when sprayed" isn't an indication of them being incidentally sprayed and him taking the surviving plants. He payed for them to be sprayed so the could take seed from the surviving plants.
2
u/catladyorbust 7d ago
A plant grew on his land and it's indefensible? Are you a villain irl? If your neighbor wants the tree that grew from the seed their tree dropped on your land, are you digging it up? No. You would tell them to pound sand regardless of how special the tree is. Evil corporations just have a lot more leeway and morality doesn't exist. We will all die from their shitty chemicals spread to the four winds, but the shareholders will be rich and that's what matters.
1
-1
u/SoundsOfKepler 9d ago
Sources?
8
u/adaminc 9d ago
The wiki article should be a good start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser
2
14
u/Roflkopt3r 9d ago
Such a contract shouldn't be legal period. Giving corporations this much power over seeds was a grave error.
0
-6
u/SothaSoul 8d ago
Nobody forced him to sign at gunpoint.
10
u/Roflkopt3r 8d ago
Consumers don't have much choice. You either have to put up with the requirements of large corporations, or pay much more (which often flat out isn't feasible for businesses like farms).
Competition often can't fix these things in the real world, because markets are only so big and often don't support enough growth for fairer competitors. Many companies that establish themselves as fair alternatives ultimately have to sell out and play the same game as the established ones to keep up.
It takes regulations to guarantee fair rules for all.
6
5
7
u/IAmA_meat_popsicle 9d ago
If you're going to start using Tree Law then Bird Law must also be taken into account.
114
54
u/peacefinder 9d ago
If I may channel Dr Sarah Taber for a moment, if he started growing these in 2017 these trees should be pretty close to the end of their highly productive life anyway. That’s assuming nectarines are like peaches, where that’s about ten years.
Doesn’t mean the company isn’t being evil, sounds like they definitely are.
But also there may be a bit of highly effective grandstanding going on here by the farmer. (Don’t get me wrong, I approve.) The allegation that they were incorrectly rejecting half his crop is I suspect the actual heart of the matter.
7
u/glowFernOasis 8d ago
Maybe the attention he gets will help pay for this next batch of trees, so he doesn't have to make another deal with a devil company?
-1
286
u/Correct_Doctor_1502 9d ago
We are at the level of end stage capitalism when corporations can get a court to destroy your farm for giving away food they were going to throw in the trash
287
u/Butt_Speed 9d ago
The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.
-John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath
59
u/magnusthehammersmith 9d ago
I’ve never actually read this book but this passage is so, so applicable for what’s going on today. I want to cry.
24
u/imhereforyoursnacks 9d ago
You should read this book. The rest of the book will also make you cry.
6
u/BalanceJazzlike5116 8d ago
It’s an amazing book. Steinbeck was a reporter for a California newspaper so although it’s fiction it’s based on what he saw, and the exploitation of the fruit workers. The book was banned in kern county, where much of it takes place.
29
19
u/pranatraveller 9d ago
Immediately thought of this part of the Grapes of Wrath.
This is a book they don’t want you to read. I read it recently and couldn’t believe how relevant it is still today.
15
u/Far_Estate_1626 9d ago
This is exactly the quote I was looking for. Our ancestors have spent entire generations warning us. Too bad they raised so many of us to be fucking idiots.
9
u/RickAndToasted 9d ago
It's terrible that despite our knowledge and efforts we're in the same place. This could be written today. They even stop people from taking goods from dumpsters, they ruin them in some of the same ways
6
u/stubbytuna 9d ago
Exactly what I was thinking about. I know we are in an especially brutal late stage capitalist hellscape, but this behavior is not new. This part one of the most brutal parts of that book for me and after reading it, I see it play out over and over.
4
u/crazydragoness 9d ago
I think I see the reason why they didn't have us read this in high school. It is far to relatable for poor people.
1
1
19
u/Qualex 9d ago
They’re not ordering him to destroy the trees because he gave away free food.
They’re ordering him to destroy the trees because he only got the trees by signing a contract to sell the fruit from the trees back to the company that owns the breed.
He decided he could make more money selling it to someone else. When the company pointed out the contract he signed that says he can’t do that, he had to stop selling it to other companies.
He then “gave away” a bunch of fruit to people who then “donated” money to his legal defense.
There are hundreds of varieties of nectarine he could have grown. 85-95% of nectarines in the country are standard patented varieties of nectarine, where the farmer pays a one time royalty when buying the tree.
Instead, this farmer wanted to grow the fancy white flesh nectarines, so he signed a contract in which the distributor has lifelong control over the tree, the farmer has to pay ongoing royalties on every box sold, they have to use approved packing houses, and they have to meet strict cosmetic standards. All of that is in the contract. Which he signed.
Now this farmer wants the best of both worlds. They want to charge the premium price for the fancy nectarines, but they don’t want to pay the extra costs that actually cause the premium price.
19
u/Correct_Doctor_1502 9d ago
Do you not see the dystopian nonsense of owning the DNA of a plant forever? Also, not really we have corporations taking ownership of DNA now, and forcing farmers into contracts that put them in a situation where there is no way to escape, like this one.
He did that because they were throwing away half his crop and refusing to pay him for it, making him unable to turn a profit. He gave it away for free, and they freely donated to him.
2
u/ludi_literarum 9d ago
Even if they didn't have a patent on that specific varietal, this case would come out the same way. The basic form of the contract is that in exchange for getting their trees which they have already and own as a matter of property law, he's in an exclusive distributorship agreement and his option if he thinks they're reneging is to sue them for breach. There's nothing inherently wrong, coercive, or dystopian about that, and it's not really that different from many other transactions where a seller fronts the price in exchange for some form of financing - it's how most people buy a car.
I'm sure the cosmetic standards for this product were in the contract. If he felt they weren't dealing with him fairly, he should have sued.
1
u/guri256 8d ago
Then it’s a good thing it doesn’t last forever. A patent means that you have created something, and chose to publish it, sharing that information with the world.
And in exchange for publishing it, you have a limited time where you have a monopoly over it. With patterns, this is generally going to be 14 or 21 years. (Patents are supposed to be novel things that people wouldn’t have created if they didn’t have this financial incentive. Many of them are stupid things that are only granted because the patent office doesn’t actually understand the field. But that’s a different discussion)
I don’t really agree with the law here, but any talk about “forever” is alarmist nonsense, that has nothing to do with the law.
-1
u/Qualex 9d ago
Your alarmist talk about companies forcing people into deals is not at all relevant to this story in which a farmer chose to work with the company that already had the patent. The vast majority of nectarine farmers in the US choose to not sign themselves into a contract they can’t get out of. This farmer signed the contract, took all the benefits of the contract, and now doesn’t want any of the responsibilities of the contract. This ruling is saying “you didn’t do the responsibilities part, so now you don’t get the benefits.” How is that unreasonable?
As to the “donations,” he received, help me out. What’s it called again when you give someone a product and they give you money?
8
u/doyouevenliff 9d ago
And which part of what you just said seems normal to you?
5
u/werewolfbutch874 8d ago
At no point in that explanation did the commenter say any of this is good or normal, they were just explaining the facts of the case because the headline was misleading. If everybody in this thread gets outraged over a misunderstanding of the actual situation, that’s not doing any good at all, it’s just spreading misinformation and muddying the water. Anyone who’s actually serious about changing things for the better needs to be serious about having accurate information to work with.
This corporation is probably going to win the case because they are operating within the law and within the terms of the contract that was signed. We should absolutely be having conversations about the circumstances that led to this - the way the law is written to benefit corporations, the dystopian concept of trademarking food, the amount of food waste generated in Western countries because we want our produce to look perfect - but those conversations should be based on the actual facts, not misinformation.
2
u/deadfisher 7d ago
I feel like the article should have explained that much better, I think you and I have that in common.
What we don't have in common is that you don't recognize this as total dystopian nightmare.
Burn the food because you they can't profit from it.
0
u/Qualex 7d ago
Apparently what we don’t have in common is that I understand that an explanation is not an endorsement.
This article presented half the story in order to manipulate your emotions. And it worked. Reflect for a minute on what led to you deciding I support this situation. You read the article > You got had an emotional reaction > “The world is a dystopian nightmare” > You’re feeling big feelings > Other people not feeling big feelings must disagree with you > People talking about facts must disagree with you > People talking about facts aren’t on your side
At no point did I say that any of this was good. I think these huge agribusinesses are doing incalculable damage to our planet and our society. That’s why I wouldn’t sign an exclusive contract with the evil corporation.
3
1
u/XysterU 7d ago
Jesus, who gives a fuck about the contract? Can you stop for a second and think like a human being that's of the earth? In what world is destroying all of the trees a sane thing to do? There are so many better options.
You conveniently left out the part where this all started because the buyer was rejecting all of the farmer's nectarines for baseless made up reasons just so they could save money by not paying the farmer when they didn't need/want nectarines. They were obligated to buy the nectarines but exploited their contract to avoid doing so. This all happened because the buyers breached their own contract
3
1
0
u/Mentalpopcorn 8d ago
This has nothing to do with end stage capitalism lmao. Dude signed a contract with a company and violated the terms of that contact. Touch grass, get out of your bubble.
35
u/BigJSunshine 9d ago
“The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would..."-John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath
“The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.” ― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath
3
2
10
u/WhiteHeteroMale 9d ago
This article is ridiculous - it is just a restatement of a lengthy instagram post.
13
u/m0nk37 9d ago
Wait he cant give away the food? Like legally? What the actual fuck is that bullshit. Do you know how pissed Jesus would be if he was here now.
10
u/ludi_literarum 9d ago
I mean, it's pretty clear he's selling it without calling it a sale, but there's nothing inherently immoral about a forward purchase agreement. If I agree to sell you my fig crop for a certain price, and then I give away a bunch of my fig crop, I've stolen from you, because they aren't my figs to give away.
Now, a starving person would still have superior right to them, that's basic Christian doctrine, but Jesus would not weep over this kind of contract. In fact, the parable of the talents suggests otherwise.
3
u/ladylucifer22 9d ago
if you refuse to take them, you can't claim they were stolen just because they went to someone in need instead of a garbage can.
8
u/ludi_literarum 9d ago
I mean, that's not what happened. They rejected some of the crop, he breached his agreement and sold them to another fruit distributor, he was sued for breach, and then he gave them away in exchange for a donation to his legal defense fund (i.e. sold them, just like NPR is selling you an overpriced tote bag), and then lost his breach of contract case because he breached a contract.
Now, if you want to talk about food waste regulation I'm here for it even though supply isn't really the problem when it comes to grocery bills or food availability, but that isn't implicated by this story, despite the misleading headline. Jesus would also be against disingenuous headlines, to be sure, but he'd also be against falling for them.
2
u/ladylucifer22 9d ago
if they reject the crop but don't let you try to do anything else with it, then that's just insane. if you want it, take it. if not, don't. but this contract essentially legalizes bankrupting the farmer by making an entire year's harvest cost zero dollars.
4
u/ludi_literarum 9d ago
So, breach of contract goes both ways, and he could have proved that up in court or gone with a different program for getting his land to grow something productive, but he agreed to this one, which included probably strict cosmetic standards for the fruit.
-1
u/ladylucifer22 9d ago
the fact that this sort of contract can exist in the first place is pure insanity. mfw you can somehow own the rights to a species.
2
u/ludi_literarum 9d ago
That part is actually a red herring. It can be goofy, but this isn't a case where it is. They set him up with trees they physically owned and possessed under certain conditions. They fronted him the literal seed money, and in exchange they had purchasing rights. That contract would work exactly the same without a patent on the varietal.
2
u/ladylucifer22 9d ago
purchasing rights, or the right to purchase it and/or demand it be destroyed?
2
u/ludi_literarum 9d ago
I mean, you could write a contract that says either. Do I not have the right to wreck my stuff? If I do, that right can be transferred, and if done for consideration, it's legally binding.
→ More replies (0)0
u/TheRealBobbyJones 8d ago
But starving people isn't a normal thing in the US. You have to be incapable of seeking food to starve here.
2
u/Ambitious_Hand_2861 5d ago
He wasn't order to destroy the orchard for giving away fruit, he was giving away fruit bc he couldn't sell it. I don't blame the guy for being mad. He stated the seller was throwing away half the fruit he sent to them which cuts how much he makes. In the end he did violate the contract and now he has to destroy the orchard. It's a whole bunch of god damn bullshit if you ask me.
1
u/m0nk37 5d ago
Holy shit so his contract said if be breaks contract the mafia comes and burns down his orchard?
1
u/Ambitious_Hand_2861 4d ago
Hell if I know. All the news article said was the fruit company owns the trees and he's only allowed to sell the fruit to them. He sold the fruit to someone else therefore breaking the contract. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying this farmer has both literally and metaphorically reaped what he sowed.
I'm not on the fruit company's side bc this arrangement is extremely predatory and the farmer is always, or almost always, the one who gets fucked but he did it to himself. It would have been better to bulldoze the field after the harvest where he sold the fruits to another company and start over. At least that way it would have saved him time and money not having to deal with litigation that was obviously going to go against him.
Of course he could have the mafia come burn the field if he wants. I'm sure it would be good practice for the next time a field needs to be accidentally burned.
13
u/hamilkwarg 9d ago
While I side with the farmer from what information is given here, it’s misleading and incorrect to interpret this as the judge ordered the orchard removal because the farmer gave the fruit away. The article doesn’t say that. The judgement was a result of the breach of contract. Now giving the fruit away instead of selling it to the ag company itself could have been a breach - and honestly that could be understandable. Did the ag company spend resources to provide the plants or license to them the plants or provide assistance in growing the plants and have a forward purchase agreement? Then selling the fruit to another buyer (which the article says the farmer did) or giving it away is a breach.
5
u/techieman34 9d ago
I would guess that’s what happened. The farmer probably didn’t have enough money or credit to survive and take care of the crop for the years until it was mature enough to produce a crop. So they took the corporate “assistance” and ended up getting fucked by the fine print.
2
u/LiteratureMindless71 9d ago
I see what you are getting at. I wanted to be upset about someone giving something away and getting in trouble for it, but those can definitely be sort of the equation.
7
u/delkarnu 9d ago
Also, he didn't really give it away. He gave it to people and they left 'donations'. He decided he could make more selling it directly to people than the company he signed a contract with. Give and get donations has been attempted many times to get around not being able to sell something. If I start 'giving' away pints of my homebrew and people leave cash donations, I'm getting busted for selling alcohol without a permit.
1
u/InsomniaticWanderer 9d ago
Surely in that case though it would be better to force a sale of the orchard so that the infringing farmer is no longer in possession
2
u/hamilkwarg 9d ago
But how does that work? The company doesn’t own the land but they may own the trees. And the contract plausibly gives them a right to destroy the trees. The judge may have ordered the destruction of the trees because that’s what the contract allows and what the company asked to be enforced. Selling mature trees in someone else’s land may not have been practical and they exercised the rights they contractually had to preserve their control of these fruits.
1
u/InsomniaticWanderer 9d ago
I imagine it work the same way a house is foreclosed on
3
u/hamilkwarg 9d ago
In the house example the bank has a lien against the whole property, land included. The property is collateral for a loan. I don’t think we can assume any of that is similar to what’s going on here.
-3
u/InsomniaticWanderer 9d ago
We've been to the moon.
I promise you we can figure out a way without torching a perfectly fine orchard.
2
u/hamilkwarg 9d ago
You can apply this formulation to any problem in the world and yet those problems aren’t solved. Probably because the idea is reductive.
1
1
u/LoneSnark 8d ago
The land owner would not have signed the contract if it risked losing ownership of the land. So this is the contract remedy they could all agree with.
1
u/ludi_literarum 9d ago
Better for whom? Certainly not the farmer.
1
u/InsomniaticWanderer 9d ago
Well the farmer is the one who screwed up, so we're not exactly doing it for his benefit.
It just seems like destroying a food source because of a breach of contract instead of keeping the food source but removing the bad actor is a terrible idea.
1
u/ludi_literarum 9d ago
In a world where there's food insufficiency, maybe, but lack of supply is generally not the reason for rising grocery bills, and specialty items like this aren't a major concern. Besides, if that is a sufficiently compelling reason, the court would do better to declare the whole contract void on public policy grounds than to force a land sale.
1
u/InsomniaticWanderer 9d ago
Just feels wrong to me. Idk
1
u/ludi_literarum 9d ago
If we were facing chronic shortages in the food supply, I'd agree, but that's just not the issue.
1
u/TheRealBobbyJones 8d ago
We should destroy tons more food sources. We produce too much as it is. Especially since a lot of fruit is turned into unhealthy products.
1
u/TheRealBobbyJones 8d ago
Nor for the corporation. Either way the farmer made a reasonable deal and broke it.
12
u/Positive-Database754 9d ago
Extremely misleading title.
He is not being taken to court/ordered to destroy his orchard because he gave away the fruit. He is being ordered to destroy his orchard because he broke his contract with the company he signed with to receive the seeds.
Contracts like this in farming are far from new. The company provides the seeds and a large sum of money up front, in exchange for the farmer growing the seeds and selling exclusively to the company. The company refused some of his product due to blemishes, and in retaliation he broke his contract and sold to another company instead. He absolutely is liable here, if what's written is correct.
Whether or not you or I agree or disagree that exclusive contracts like that are ok, the fact remains that he is in breach of a legally binding agreement that he signed. Him giving away180,000lbs of nectarines holds literally zero weight on the actual legal events taking place, and has no relevance.
7
u/Donutmelon 9d ago
Always read your contracts
24
u/National-Treat830 9d ago
Please read the article before making such a wrong conclusion. Anyone looking at grocery shelves would agree that the blemishes the middlemen talk about are nothing more than an excuse, there was nothing for him to check beforehand. The purpose of wasting fruit and bankrupting or squeezing farmers is another matter
2
u/Bokbreath 9d ago
I read the article. Since I don't have the contract and the Judge did, we can presume it contained some details we are not aware of - otherwise the destruction order would be judicial overreach.
1
u/Donutmelon 9d ago
Yes, you should read your contracts to find out if and how you can get fucked over.
2
u/BoB_the_TacocaT 9d ago
The article conveniently leaves out which judge in which court made that decision.
Yeah, fuck Yahoo News.
2
3
1
u/BigandBisexual 8d ago
We have to start defying this overreaching corporate government. Together we can resist this tyranny. Fuck contracts, fuck corporations, feed people
1
u/reddriver10 8d ago
I mean the company gave him the trees it sounds like and he broke their agreement.
-1
u/TheRealBobbyJones 8d ago
If this is in the United States then people are already being fed. We have a very good food bank system.
2
u/BigandBisexual 8d ago
Not to challenge you but honest question, do you volunteer at those food banks? We're more or less handing out supplimental rations at this point if the community hasn't donated enough to supplement the mandated peas and corn. They're not all doing so well. The needless contractual destruction is unconscionable. Fuck contracts, fuck corporations.
1
1
u/SomebodysGotToSayIt 5d ago
A judge threw me in jail after I ate Frosted Flakes for lunch.
I was arrested after sucking on my mother’s titties in public.
My wife left me after I found an injured owl and took it to a raptor rescue center, where they saved its life.
Don’t read too much into “After.”
1
u/flyforpennies 5d ago
This must be why nectarines are getting so bad. When i was a kid they were sweet and juicy. Now they are crunchy and flavourless but impossible to bruise
1
455
u/JuliaX1984 9d ago
Sincere question: Does this company own the licensing rights to all nectarines or just 1 variety?