7 U.S.C. § 499b

Unfair conduct

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be unlawful in or in connection with any transaction in interstate or foreign commerce:(1) For any commission merchant, dealer, or broker to engage in or use any unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, or deceptive practice in connection with the weighing, counting, or in any way determining the quantity of any perishable agricultural commodity received, bought, sold, shipped, or handled in interstate or foreign commerce.(2) For any dealer to reject or fail to deliver in accordance with the terms of the contract without reasonable cause any perishable agricultural commodity bought or sold or contracted to be bought, sold, or consigned in interstate or foreign commerce by such dealer.(3) For any commission merchant to discard, dump, or destroy without reasonable cause, any perishable agricultural commodity received by such commission merchant in interstate or foreign commerce.(4) For any commission merchant, dealer, or broker to make, for a fraudulent purpose, any false or misleading statement in connection with any transaction involving any perishable agricultural commodity which is received in interstate or foreign commerce by such commission merchant, or bought or sold, or contracted to be bought, sold, or consigned, in such commerce by such dealer, or the purchase or sale of which in such commerce is negotiated by such broker; or to fail or refuse truly and correctly to account and make full payment promptly in respect of any transaction in any such commodity to the person with whom such transaction is had; or to fail, without reasonable cause, to perform any specification or duty, express or implied, arising out of any undertaking in connection with any such transaction; or to fail to maintain the trust as required under section 499e(c) of this title. However, this paragraph shall not be considered to make the good faith offer, solicitation, payment, or receipt of collateral fees and expenses, in and of itself, unlawful under this chapter.(5) For any commission merchant, dealer, or broker to misrepresent by word, act, mark, stencil, label, statement, or deed, the character, kind, grade, quality, quantity, size, pack, weight, condition, degree of maturity, or State, country, or region of origin of any perishable agricultural commodity received, shipped, sold, or offered to be sold in interstate or foreign commerce. However, any commission merchant, dealer, or broker who has violated—(A) any provision of this paragraph may, with the consent of the Secretary, admit the violation or violations; or(B) any provision of this paragraph relating to a misrepresentation by mark, stencil, or label shall be permitted by the Secretary to admit the violation or violations if such violation or violations are not repeated or flagrant;and pay, in the case of a violation under either clause (A) or (B) of this paragraph, a monetary penalty not to exceed $2,000 in lieu of a formal proceeding for the suspension or revocation of license, any payment so made to be deposited into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts. A person other than the first licensee handling misbranded perishable agricultural commodities shall not be held liable for a violation of this paragraph by reason of the conduct of another if the person did not have knowledge of the violation or lacked the ability to correct the violation.(6) For any commission merchant, dealer, or broker, for a fraudulent purpose, to remove, alter, or tamper with any card, stencil, stamp, tag, or other notice placed upon any container or railroad car containing any perishable agricultural commodity, if such card, stencil, stamp, tag, or other notice contains a certificate or statement under authority of any Federal or State inspector or in compliance with any Federal or State law or regulation as to the grade or quality of the commodity contained in such container or railroad car or the State or country in which such commodity was produced.(7) For any commission merchant, dealer or broker, without the consent of an inspector, to make, cause, or permit to be made any change by way of substitution or otherwise in the contents of a load or lot of any perishable agricultural commodity after it has been officially inspected for grading and certification, but this shall not prohibit re-sorting and discarding inferior produce.(June 10, 1930, ch. 436, § 2, 46 Stat. 532; Apr. 13, 1934, ch. 120, §§ 2, 3, 48 Stat. 585; June 19, 1936, ch. 602, § 1, 49 Stat. 1533; Aug. 20, 1937, ch. 719, §§ 2–4, 50 Stat. 725, 726; June 29, 1940, ch. 456, §§ 3, 4, 54 Stat. 696; Apr. 6, 1942, ch. 211, 56 Stat. 200; July 30, 1956, ch. 786, § 1, 70 Stat. 726; Pub. L. 93–369, Aug. 10, 1974, 88 Stat. 423; Pub. L. 97–352, § 1, Oct. 18, 1982, 96 Stat. 1667; Pub. L. 98–273, § 2, May 7, 1984, 98 Stat. 166; Pub. L. 104–48, §§ 9(b), 10, Nov. 15, 1995, 109 Stat. 430.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section was formerly classified to section 552 of this title.

Amendments

1995—Pub. L. 104–48, § 9(b)(1), substituted “commerce:” for “commerce—” in introductory provisions.

Pars. (1) to (3). Pub. L. 104–48, § 9(b)(2), substituted period for semicolon at end.

Par. (4). Pub. L. 104–48, § 9(b)(2), (3), substituted period for semicolon after “section 499e(c) of this title” and inserted at end “However, this paragraph shall not be considered to make the good faith offer, solicitation, payment, or receipt of collateral fees and expenses, in and of itself, unlawful under this chapter.”

Par. (5). Pub. L. 104–48, §§ 9(b)(2), 10, substituted “foreign commerce. However,” for “foreign commerce: Provided, That”, substituted period for semicolon after “miscellaneous receipts”, and inserted at end “A person other than the first licensee handling misbranded perishable agricultural commodities shall not be held liable for a violation of this paragraph by reason of the conduct of another if the person did not have knowledge of the violation or lacked the ability to correct the violation.”

Par. (6). Pub. L. 104–48, § 9(b)(2), substituted period for semicolon at end.

1984—Par. (4). Pub. L. 98–273 inserted “or to fail to maintain the trust as required under section 499e(c) of this title;”.

1982—Par. (5). Pub. L. 97–352 substituted “Provided, That any commission merchant, dealer, or broker who has violated (A) any provision of this paragraph may, with the consent of the Secretary, admit the violation or violations; or (B) any provision of this paragraph relating to a misrepresentation by mark, stencil, or label shall be permitted by the Secretary to admit the violation or violations if such violation or violations are not repeated or flagrant; and pay, in the case of a violation under either clause (A) or (B) of this paragraph,” for “Provided, That any commission merchant, dealer, or broker who has violated this paragraph may, with the consent of the Secretary, admit the violation or violations and pay”.

1974—Par. (5). Pub. L. 93–369 inserted proviso for consent admission of violations, payment of monetary penalty not in excess of $2,000 in lieu of formal proceedings for suspension or revocation of license, and for deposit of the payments into the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.

1956—Par. (5). Act July 30, 1956, struck out “for a fraudulent purpose” after “broker”, and included misrepresentation of region of origin.

1942—Par. (4). Act Apr. 6, 1942, inserted “and make full payment” and “or to fail, without reasonable cause, to perform any specification or duty, express or implied, arising out of any undertaking in connection with any such transaction”.

1940—Par. (1). Act June 29, 1940, § 3, among other changes, inserted “dealer” after “merchant”.

Par. (5). Act June 29, 1940, inserted “quantity, size, pack, weight” after “quality”.

1937—Par. (5). Act Aug. 20, 1937, § 2, among other changes, inserted “mark, stencil, label, statement” after “act” and “the character, kind, grade, quality, condition, degree of maturity” after “or deed”.

Par. (6). Act Aug. 20, 1937, § 3, inserted “or in compliance with any Federal or State law or regulation” after “inspector”.

Par. (7). Act Aug. 20, 1937, § 4, added par. (7).

1936—Par. (4). Act June 17, 1936, struck out “or concerning the condition of the market for” after “involving”.

1934—Par. (2). Act Apr. 13, 1934, § 2, inserted “or consigned” after “sold”.

Par. (4). Act Apr. 13, 1934, § 3, substituted “in connection with any transaction involving or concerning” for “concerning the condition, quality, quantity or disposition of” and inserted “or consigned” after “contracted to be bought or sold”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 221 cases (56 in the last 5 years), 1937–2026 · leading case: Dell's Maraschino Cherries Co. v. Shoreline Fruit Growers, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 459 (E.D.N.Y 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dell's Maraschino Cherries Co. v. Shoreline Fruit Growers, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 459 (E.D.N.Y 2012). · cites it 5× “Dell’s PACA Claim Dell’s also seeks summary judgment on its PACA claim pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 499b(2). “PACA was enacted in 1930 to regulate the interstate sale of perishable agricultural commodities (essentially, fruits and vegetables).”

Nickey Gregory Co., LLC v. AGRICAP, LLC, 597 F.3d 591 (4th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “See 7 U.S.C. § 499b; 7 C.F.R. § 46.46 (d)(1).”

Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Barton Willoughby, D/B/A Willoughby Farms, 863 F.2d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “7 U.S.C. § 499b. Appellant counterclaimed for recovery of an asserted overpayment for the potatoes it accepted.”

Mrs. Condies Salad Co. v. Colorado Blue Ribbon Foods, LLC, 858 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Colo. 2012). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff brings one cause of action against Defendant Blue Ribbon based on violation of 7 U.S.C. § 499b. See id. at 2-4. In support, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Blue Ribbon was licensed or subject to license pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930…”

Wilson v. Burch Farms, Inc., 627 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “§ 499e of PACA states that “[i]f any broker violates any provision of section 2 [of 7 U.S.C. § 499b regarding unfair conduct and unreasonable rejection of the perishable agricultural commodity], he shall be liable to the person thereby injured for the full amount of damages.”

Finer Foods Sales Co., Inc. v. John R. Block, Sec'y of Agric., United States Dep't of Agric., & United States of Am., 708 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1983). · cites it 4× “to have committed any flagrant or repeated violation of section 2 [7 U.S.C. § 499b] .... The Secretary may approve such employment .”

Farley & Calfee, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 941 F.2d 964 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “On November 23,1987, the United States Department of Agriculture (the “Department”) filed a disciplinary complaint against F & C, alleging that the company had violated section 2 of the PACA, 7 U.S.C. § 499b, by failing to make full payment promptly for 51 lots of perishable…”

JSG Trading Corp. v. Dep't of Agric., 235 F.3d 608 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “A broker’s status as a principal, an agent, or an employee depends on its relationship to other parties in a transaction, not its possession of a license.”

Frio Ice, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc., John R. Plana, Jr., Oswaldo P. Rodriguez, 918 F.2d 154 (11th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “7 U.S.C.A. § 499b(4) (West Supp.1990). 1 In the early 1980s, Congress determined that the increase in non-payment and delinquent payment by produce dealers threatened the financial stability of produce growers.”

Bocchi Americas Assocs., Inc. v. Com. Fresh Mktg., Inc., 515 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 7 U.S.C. § 499b(4). If a buyer fails to do so, the seller may file a complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture or file a civil suit against the buyer.”

Taylor v. United States Dep't of Agric., 636 F.3d 608 (D.C. Cir. 2011). · cites it 8× “It also provides that PACA licensees may not employ, for at least one year, any person found “responsibly connected” to any person whose license has been revoked or suspended, or who has been found to have committed any flagrant or repeated violation of 7 U.S.C. § 499b. See 7…”

Kingdom Fresh Produce, Inc. v. Stokes Law Off., L.L.P. (In Re Delta Produce, L.P.), 845 F.3d 609 (5th Cir. 2016). “7 U.S.C. § 499b(4). In 1984, Congress strengthened the protections of the Act by requiring buyers— often brokers that purchase the produce from farmers and then sell it to grocery stores or restaurants—to hold either the produce or all proceeds or accounts receivable from a…”

Show all 221 citing cases →

— 7 U.S.C. § 499b(2) — 9 cases

Dell's Maraschino Cherries Co. v. Shoreline Fruit Growers, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d 459 (E.D.N.Y 2012). “Dell’s PACA Claim Dell’s also seeks summary judgment on its PACA claim pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 499b(2). “PACA was enacted in 1930 to regulate the interstate sale of perishable agricultural commodities (essentially, fruits and vegetables).”

Produce Pay, Inc. v. Izguerra Produce, Inc., 39 F.4th 1158 (9th Cir. 2022).

Six L's Packing Co. v. Beale, 524 F. App'x 148 (6th Cir. 2013).

Am. Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Goldstein Fruit & Produce Corp., 78 F. Supp. 309 (E.D. Pa. 1948).

Farris v. Meyer Schuman Co., 115 F.2d 577 (7th Cir. 1940).

— 7 U.S.C. § 499b(3) — 3 cases

Wilson v. Burch Farms, Inc., 627 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006). “§ 499e of PACA states that “[i]f any broker violates any provision of section 2 [of 7 U.S.C. § 499b regarding unfair conduct and unreasonable rejection of the perishable agricultural commodity], he shall be liable to the person thereby injured for the full amount of damages.”

Tom Lange Co., Inc. v. A. Gagliano Co., Inc., 61 F.3d 1305 (7th Cir. 1995).

Tom Lange Co. v. A. Gagliano Co., 859 F. Supp. 356 (E.D. Wis. 1994).

— 7 U.S.C. § 499b(4) — 162 cases

Nickey Gregory Co., LLC v. AGRICAP, LLC, 597 F.3d 591 (4th Cir. 2010). “See 7 U.S.C. § 499b; 7 C.F.R. § 46.46 (d)(1).”

Frio Ice, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc., John R. Plana, Jr., Oswaldo P. Rodriguez, 918 F.2d 154 (11th Cir. 1990). “7 U.S.C.A. § 499b(4) (West Supp.1990). 1 In the early 1980s, Congress determined that the increase in non-payment and delinquent payment by produce dealers threatened the financial stability of produce growers.”

Bocchi Americas Assocs., Inc. v. Com. Fresh Mktg., Inc., 515 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2008). “” 7 U.S.C. § 499b(4). If a buyer fails to do so, the seller may file a complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture or file a civil suit against the buyer.”

Finer Foods Sales Co., Inc. v. John R. Block, Sec'y of Agric., United States Dep't of Agric., & United States of Am., 708 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “to have committed any flagrant or repeated violation of section 2 [7 U.S.C. § 499b] .... The Secretary may approve such employment .”

— 7 U.S.C. § 499b(5) — 4 cases

Magic Valley Potato Shippers, Inc. v. The Sec'y of Agric., 702 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1983).

Potato Sales Co., Inc., Petitioner, v. Dep't of Agric., Respondent, 92 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1996).

Maine Potato Growers, Inc. v. Earl L. Butz, Sec'y of Agric. & the United States, 540 F.2d 518 (1st Cir. 1976).

Harrisburg Daily Mkt., Inc. v. Orville L. Freeman, Sec'y of Agric., & United States of Am., 309 F.2d 646 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

— 7 U.S.C. § 499b(7) — 1 case

Capital Produce Co., Inc. v. United States of Am. Clayton Yeutter, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Agric., 930 F.2d 1077 (4th Cir. 1991).

— 7 U.S.C. § 499b(a) — 1 case

— 7 U.S.C. § 499b(g) — 1 case

Rocha v. JW Produce, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2022).

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.