A. The association and its members may make and execute marketing contracts requiring the members to sell, for any period of time not over ten years, all or any specified part of their agricultural products, their specified commodities or their manufactured goods exclusively to or through the association or its facilities.
B. The membership contract may provide for membership for a longer period than ten years but not exceeding thirty years, if the contract provides opportunity to the members for withdrawal at least once each year.
C. The contract may provide that the association may sell the products of its members, with or without taking title thereto, and pay to its members the average sale price based on grade and quantity, after deducting all necessary selling, overhead and other costs and expenses.
D. When provided in the bylaws, the marketing contract may fix, as liquidated damages, specific sums to be paid by the members to the association upon the breach by him of any provision of the marketing contract regarding the sale or delivery or withholding of products, and that the member will pay all costs, premiums for bonds, expenses and fees if an action is brought upon the contract by the association, and such provision shall be valid and enforceable in the courts.
E. In event of a breach, or threatened breach, of the marketing contract by a member, the association may apply for an injunction to prevent the further breach of the contract, and to enforce specific performance thereof.
Notes of Decisions
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Rawlings, 177 P.3d 334 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 29× “The court’s reasoning in its January 12, 2004 minute entries [sic] in CV2001-022535 is applicable here.” The judgment in the Schugg case, subsequently appealed to this court, was reversed on other grounds and we found it unnecessary at that time to address "whether A.”
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg, 128 P.3d 756 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “Because we reverse on the basis that UDA failed to establish a prima facie case for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, we do not address whether A.R.S. § 10-2016 abrogates common-law principles barring enforcement of liquidated damages provisions as…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-2016(A): 1 case
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg, 128 P.3d 756 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“Because we reverse on the basis that UDA failed to establish a prima facie case for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, we do not address whether A.R.S. § 10-2016 abrogates common-law principles barring enforcement of liquidated damages provisions as…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 10-2016(D): 2 cases
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Rawlings, 177 P.3d 334 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“The court’s reasoning in its January 12, 2004 minute entries [sic] in CV2001-022535 is applicable here.” The judgment in the Schugg case, subsequently appealed to this court, was reversed on other grounds and we found it unnecessary at that time to address "whether A.”
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg, 128 P.3d 756 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“Because we reverse on the basis that UDA failed to establish a prima facie case for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, we do not address whether A.R.S. § 10-2016 abrogates common-law principles barring enforcement of liquidated damages provisions as…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.