U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 10— WAREHOUSES

7 U.S.C. § 247

Fair treatment in storage of agricultural products

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In generalSubject to the capacity of a warehouse, a warehouse operator shall deal, in a fair and reasonable manner, with persons storing, or seeking to store, an agricultural product in the warehouse if the agricultural product—(1) is of the kind, type, and quality customarily stored or handled in the area in which the warehouse is located;(2) is tendered to the warehouse operator in a suitable condition for warehousing; and(3) is tendered in a manner that is consistent with the ordinary and usual course of business.(b) Allocation

Nothing in this section prohibits a warehouse operator from entering into an agreement with a depositor of an agricultural product to allocate available storage space.

(Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, § 8, as added Pub. L. 106–472, title II, § 201, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2065.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 247, acts Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, § 6, 39 Stat. 486; July 24, 1919, ch. 26, 41 Stat. 266; Feb. 23, 1923, ch. 106, 42 Stat. 1283; Mar. 2, 1931, ch. 366, § 2, 46 Stat. 1463, required bond as condition to granting of license and additional bonds if first bond determined to become insufficient, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 106–472. See section 245 of this title.

A prior section 8 of act Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 313, pt. C, was classified to section 250 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 106–472.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1940–2022 · leading case: Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc., 773 F.3d 58 (8th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc., 773 F.3d 58 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 9× “Syngenta argues this decision violated Bunge’s bonded obligation under 7 U.S.C. § 247 (a) to treat depositors of agricultural products fairly and Syngenta, as an entity which sells seed to Bunge’s depositors, was harmed as a result.”
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Iowa 2011). · cites it 13× “§ 245 (d) authorizes a private right of action under the USWA with respect to any violation of any section of that Act, including 7 U.S.C. § 247 (a), and that Syngenta is likely to succeed on the merits of its new third-party beneficiary breach-of-contract claim.”
United States Ex Rel. Midland Loan Fin. Co. v. Nat'l Sur. Corp., 309 U.S. 165 (1940). “§§ 170 , 171 (same as to bonds of marshals of consular courts); 28 U.”
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc. (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 10× “Syngenta argues this decision violated Bunge’s bonded obligation under 7 U.S.C. § 247 (a) to treat depositors of agricultural products fairly and Syngenta, as -4- an entity which sells seed to Bunge’s depositors, was harmed as a result.”
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North Am., Inc., 762 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 10× “Syngenta argues this decision violated Bunge’s bonded obligation under 7 U.S.C. § 247 (a) to treat depositors of agricultural products fairly and Syngenta, as an entity which sells seed to Bunge’s depositors, was harmed as a result.”
Bd. of Trade v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 156 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1946). “Prior to the amendment the section required a bond “to secure the faithful performance of his obligations as a warehouseman under the laws of the State, District, or Territory in which he is conducting such warehouse, as well as under the terms of this Act * * By the 1931…”
Appley Bros. v. United States, 924 F. Supp. 935 (D.S.D. 1996). · cites it 3× “” 7 U.S.C. § 247 . The parties agree that, under the Warehouse Act, Bird was required to maintain at all times sufficient inventory of the requisite quality grain to meet all storage obligations on demand.”
Demeter, Inc. v. Werries, 676 F. Supp. 882 (C.D. Ill. 1988). “See 7 U.S.C. § 247 (1982); see also 7 C.F.R. §§ 736.”
GS Labs, LLC v. Medica Ins. Co. (D. Minnesota 2022). “to see how FFCRA § 6001(b) can grant federal agencies the authority to enforce the coverage requirements of FFCRA § 6001(a) without [granting them the enforcement] authority to police the terms (financial or otherwise) on which insurers provide coverage.”
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.