C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER I—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (STANDARDS, INSPECTIONS, MARKETING PRACTICES), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER B—MARKETING OF PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES › PART 46—REQUIREMENTS (OTHER THAN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES) UNDER THE PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1930

7 C.F.R. § 46.19

Sales tickets

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Sales tickets shall bear printed serial numbers running consecutively and shall be used in numerical order so far as practicable. No serial number shall be repeated within a 90-day period. The sales tickets shall be prepared and all the details of the sale shall be entered on the tickets in a legible manner in order that an audit can be readily made. Erasures, strike-outs, changes, etc., should be held to the minimum. When errors are made in preparing sales tickets, the tickets should be voided. Each sales ticket shall show the date of sale, the purchaser's name (so far as practicable), the kind, quantity, the unit price, and the total selling price of the produce. Each sales ticket shall show the lot number of the shipment if the produce is being handled on consignment or on joint account. Sales tickets on all other lots of the same commodity which are on hand at the same time shall also show a lot number. The original or a legible carbon copy of each sales ticket, including those voided or unused, shall be accounted for and shall be filed or stored either by dates of sales or in the order of the serial numbers for a period of two years.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2003–2017 · leading case: S & S Packing, Inc. v. Spring Lake Rattle Ranch, Inc., 702 F. App'x 874 (11th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
S & S Packing, Inc. v. Spring Lake Rattle Ranch, Inc., 702 F. App'x 874 (11th Cir. 2017). “14 (2017); that it had failed to produce sales tickets bearing sequential serial numbers in violation of 7 C.F.R. § 46.19 ; and that its treatment of “pooled losses” failed to comply with the requirements of 7 C.”
Horizon Mktg. v. Kingdom Int'l Ltd., 244 F. Supp. 2d 131 (E.D.N.Y 2003). “See 7 C.F.R. § 46.19 . However, there is no indication on the invoices that the particular produce sold was the same produce received from plaintiffs.”
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.