Categories
Uncategorized

ARBITRATION DECISION BRIEF: Disagreement between the parties on the terms of sale and price adjustment.

Continuing with our series of articles summarizing past DRC arbitration decisions. We believe this will help members to better understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in the event of a dispute. DRC Dispute R&S state that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies are not included. A reminder that DRC’s sole role is as administrator of the arbitration process; DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.

 

Case: DRC File #20395 – Both Parties Domiciled in Canada

Facts

  • The Claimant shipped a load of 18 pallets (1967 cases) of French kiwi to the Respondent on March 8, 2019. However, 9 cases were forgotten at the Claimant Warehouse and later delivered to Respondent on March 13, 2019.
  • According to the invoice, the product was sold at a fixed price of $ 15 per carton for a total invoice price of $ 29,505, which was emailed to Respondent on March 11, 2019.
  • On April 11, 2019, more than one month later, Respondent advised Claimant that they did still have 10 pallets left and asked Claimant to decrease the price to $5 per case. The Claimant agreed to reduce the price for those pallets.
  • On May 2, 2019, the Claimant received a payment of $9,845 for the 1967 cases, which means Respondent paid $5.00 per case.
  • Claimant requested a sales report to the Respondent. However, Respondent did not provide it.

Issue

  • Whether there was an agreement between the parties on the terms of sale.
  • Whether the Claimant agreed on a price adjustment. If so, the price adjustment applies to all the load or just to 10 pallets.

 

Arbitrator’s Analysis/Reasoning

Did the claimant and respondent agree to a fixed price for Invoice #18-3156?

Yes. The arbitrator believed the parties agreed to a firm price for the following reasons:

  1. a) An invoice was sent to the respondent on March 08, 2019. This invoice was not contested. Although the previous transactions have little bearing on invoice 18-3156, it is noteworthy that when the kiwis were sold open price, the invoice was sent after the product was sold. In this instance, the invoice was sent at the time of shipment suggesting the claimant treated this as a fixed price contract.
  2. b) The claimant continues to assert this is a fixed price contract during an e-mail exchange on April 11, 2019. Following an e-mail from the Respondent in which they asked for an adjustment by saying, “maybe I can sell at $5?” Claimant responds, “We never agreed on consignment…you bought fixed price at 15$….” This e-mail never appears to be rebutted. Additionally, the question mark used in Respondent’s e-mail suggests he was seeking approval for a price adjustment.

 

  1. c) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if the respondent thought this was an open price, they did not act in accordance with an open price contract. Per DRC’s Trading Standards, in the absence of an agreement on price, if a buyer remits a report of their sales, and a price cannot be settled, the buyer has the burden of proving that his reported sales were true and accurate.

As a result of the above, if the respondent thought this was an open price transaction, they should have contested the invoice, rebutted the claims in the e-mail transaction, and conducted themselves as though this was open price. Given the complete lack of an account of sales, there is little proof the respondent believed this was open price.

 

Was there an agreement to adjust the price from $15 to $5?  If yes, for the entire 18 pallets, or was the price only reduced for the 10 pallets?

Firstly, yes, it appears the respondent offered $5 in the April 11 e-mail exchange and the claimant agreed to this reduction to $5.  The question remains, was the $5 adjustment for the entire load or merely for the 10 remaining unsold pallets?  In the e-mail exchange Respondent writes, “Slow people don’t want this fruit, Approx. 10 pallets in stock, Maybe I can sell at 5$? you decide, or I can send it to someone else?” This e-mail implies that the respondent is seeking a price adjustment on the 10 pallets remaining and not on the 8 pallets previously sold. Furthermore, if the claimant did opt to send the remaining 10 pallets to someone else, it would have been reasonable for the claimant to accept payment in full for the 8 pallets that were sold. For these reasons, the arbitrator agreed with the claimant that the adjustment pertained only to the remaining 10 pallets and not to the entire load.

As stated in the DRC by-laws and Operating Rules, under General Records Section 3, “Members shall keep records which are adapted to the particular business that the member is conducting and in each case such records shall fully disclose all transactions in the business in sufficient detail to be readily understood.”

Also, “The responsibility is placed on every member to maintain records which will disclose all essential facts regarding the transactions in his business”

Note: Although the product was received under protest, the arbitrator did not believe this, or that the quality report provided by Respondent had any direct impact on the outcome or decision regarding this dispute.

 

Arbitrator’s Decision

Award in favor of Claimant, in the amount of $8,670.00 plus $826.18 for arbitration filing fees. A total of $9,496.18 must be paid by Respondent to Claimant.

 

DRC Comments

We cannot stress enough the importance of documenting in writing every part of the transaction. From the negotiating process to the final payment or settlement, following up with an email or fax, of what was discussed over the phone, is paramount and helps avoiding misunderstandings. We understand the fast pace of our industry but taking the time to write an email or a fax can save you some headaches.

Currently, more and more text messages are used to try to demonstrate what was negotiated or agreed in a transaction. However, text messages tend to be short, are not properly linked to a transaction, and are not specific enough about the conditions of the sale or settlement. While text messages can be used as evidence in a DRC procedure, it is your responsibility to make sure that those communications can be linked to the transaction and clearly convey the intended information.

For more information regarding the sections of DRC Trading Standards applied to this dispute, refer to the following sections:

DRC Trading Standards:

Categories
Uncategorized

2021 Board of Directors Annual General Meeting

The DRC’s Board of Directors and Annual General Meeting (AGM) was held virtually from June 2-4 2021. DRC staff reported on the audited financial statements and key DRC priorities including Membership, Marketing, and Trading Assistance. The Board also received updates from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on Destination Inspection Services, implementation of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations and the DRC grade standards project.

 

During the AGM the members elected Frank Spagnuolo (Canada), Tony Martin (Canada), Robert Guenther (USA), George Pitsikoulis (Canada), Gerardo Mena Prieto (Mexico) and Felipe Silva (Chile) as Directors.

Categories
Uncategorized

Counterclaim and Counterclaim with Setoff

DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules define a counterclaim and a counterclaim with setoff as follow:

“Counterclaim” means a claim by a Respondent arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the Claim and that is in excess of the amount being claimed by the claimant.  Subject to Article 4, a Counterclaim is to be brought by way of a Counterclaim provided that the Respondent previously gave notice of the Counterclaim during the informal consultation process.  Claims by a Respondent arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the Claim that are less than the amount being claimed by the claimant are to be asserted as a defense only in the Statement of Defence. Claims by a Respondent arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the Claim that are out of time pursuant to Article 4 may be asserted as a defense to the Claim in the Statement of Defence but no amounts in excess of the Claim shall be recoverable;

“Counterclaim with setoff” means a claim by a Respondent arising out of a transaction extrinsic to the Claim.  Subject to Article 4, a Counterclaim with setoff may only be brought by way of a Counterclaim with setoff provided that the Respondent previously gave notice of the Counterclaim with setoff during the informal consultation process.  A Counterclaim with setoff is not allowed to be asserted as a defence to the Claim;

Both definitions require that a counterclaim or a counterclaim with setoff are raised during the informal consultation/mediation process and in accordance with Article 4 of DRC’s Dispute Resolution Rules, which provides a time limitation to file a claim, a counterclaim, or a counterclaim with setoff.

The main difference between a counterclaim and a counterclaim with setoff is that all the elements of a counterclaim are directly connected to the transactions claimed by the claimant. For example, Company “A” sells one load of apples for a $15,000 total invoice price to company “B”. When company “B” receives the load, an inspection is requested, and the results of the inspection show 60% condition defects. Company B decides to claim damages and their sales, less expenses connected to the transaction, indicate a loss of $1,000 above and beyond the original invoiced price. In other words, company “B” has a negative return on the load. Company “B” has the right to initiate a claim against company “A” or, company “B” can wait for company “A” to file a Statement of Claim if unsatisfied with the negative return, and then company “B” can counterclaim to have company “A” pay the $1,000.

The elements of a counterclaim with setoff are not connected to the claim initiated by the claimant. Let’s take the same scenario presented before, but with the following twist. Company “B” decides to deduct the $1,000 loss from a prior transaction done with company “A”. Now company “A”, instead of having one disputed invoice, has now two disputed invoices. One invoice is directly connected to the above scenario and the other one is not. Company “B” is offsetting $1,000 from an unrelated invoice.  While the companies are the same, the transactions involved are different.

When a Claimant files a Statement of Claim, a counterclaim or a counterclaim with setoff can be included in a Statement of Defence as a defence. However, if the Respondent wishes to collect their losses, a separate counterclaim or counterclaim with setoff must be filed, along with the appropriate arbitration fees, concurrently with their Statement of Defence.

DRC Operating Rules require that DRC members fulfill their financial obligations. Therefore, offsets are only allowed if the parties have agreed to this type of practice.

Categories
Uncategorized

Modernizing Canada’s Grades and Requirements for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables

The DRC initiative to review and modernize the (CFIA) Canadian Grade Compendium: Volume 2 – Fresh Fruit or Vegetable Grades and Requirements continues to progress well.

A review of 17 of the 30 standards has been completed by industry-named representatives. The mandate of the commodity-specific review teams is to bring commodity-specific knowledge to the table representative of growing, shipping, packing and marketing in order to consider and make recommendations for relevant updates and amendments. Reviewers have been very engaged and provided valuable input. It is important to recognize that this project would not be possible without their expertise and significant contributions.

·     Greenhouse Cucumbers

·     Greenhouse Tomatoes

·     Apples

·     Apricots

·     Grapes

·     Nectarines (new)

·     Peaches

·     Pears

·     Plums and Prunes

·     Asparagus

·     Beets

·     Cabbage

·     Carrots

·     Onions

·     Parsnips

·     Potatoes

·     Rutabagas

 

The completed standards, as well as a new standard for nectarines based on a test market authorization, are under review by CFIA. Once their review of the 17 standards has been completed, a World Trade Organization (WTO) notification will take place and the proposed changes will be posted to the CFIA website for a public comment period. The proposed changes will also be posted to the DRC website.

Industry review of the remaining standards will be completed by early fall, followed by the required CFIA review and further WTO notifications.

For additional information on the reviews and next steps, contact Anne Fowlie (afowlie@fvdrc.com).

~~~~~

The DRC-led initiative is supported by the AgriAssurance Program, under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, a federal, provincial territorial initiative.

Categories
Uncategorized

Membership Updates for July 15, 2021

Welcome New Members

From June 15 to July 15, 2021 DRC welcomed the following new members:

COMERCIAL GREENVIC S.A.

Region Metropolitana

Chile

C.I.B. (2013) NUTS & DRIED FRUITS TRADING INC.

QC

Canada

MAEN CANADA INC.

ON

Canada

CANADA FARM SUPERMARKET LTD.

BC

Canada

STELLAR IMPEX INC.

QC

Canada

CGF INTERNATIONAL (Faisant également affaire sous Fritzner P

QC

Canada

C & E FARMS, INC.

CA

United States

WEST PAK AVOCADO, LLC. (Also d/b/a West Pak Avocado)

TX

United States

TRUCKIT (A d/b/a of 10656330 Canada Inc.)

NS

Canada

XINDEYOUAN (VANCOUVER) INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD.

BC

Canada

GIUMARRA VINEYARDS CORPORATION

CA

United States

VEG-PRO, INC.

Michigan

United States

MECA – MARCHAND ETHNIQUE CANADIEN INC.

QC

Canada

PANGEA GROWERS GROUP LLC (Also d/b/a Pangea Growers)

FL

United States

NAVEED AHMED

AB

Canada

 

DRC Membership: change in status

As of July 15,2021, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

REAL CENTRAL POINT INC.

ON

Canada

EXOTICA FRUITS & VEGETABLES (A d/b/a of 9329-1680 Quebec In

QC

Canada

TRADONICS CORPORATION

ON

Canada

CINT INTERNATIONAL TRADE INC. (Also d/b/a CINT International

ON

Canada

PREMIUM GROUP TRADING LTD.

ON

Canada

 

For details regarding a change in status, please contact the office.

Important note: Following membership termination, the former member remains liable for claims arising prior to their termination if the claim is submitted to DRC by way of a Notice of Dispute within nine (9) months from when the claim arose or within nine (9) months from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence.

 

About DRC

DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. DRC is a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e.: buy, sell, import, export) unless excepted from the regulations. Today, DRC has members in 14 countries outside of North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a DRC member.

In addition to the DRC’s Operating Rules and Trading Standards, DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build the knowledge and capacity of members to avoid or resolve disputes, including education, mediation and arbitration. DRC has ability to impose sanctions and disciplinary actions towards members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

To date, DRC has resolved claims in excess of $83 million dollars. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation/mediation services. Arbitration awards are court enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

To learn more, reach out to our Help Desk at info@fvdrc.com or (+1) 613-234-0982 or visit us at www.fvdrc.com.

 

Categories
Uncategorized

Properly Documenting Discarded Produce

The words “Dump Certificate” have to be in the top ten phrases which lead to a DRC consultation.  The goal of this article is to differentiate between documenting disposal and establishing that a product has no commercial value.   Misunderstanding the difference can cost you plenty.

There are three main events which lead to a need to document disposal/destruction.   They are:

  • Mutual agreement of buyer and seller.
  • Order of a government officer or agency.
  • Documenting claims where an excess of 5% of product is to be destroyed or discarded.

Items 1 and 2 are straightforward and require identification of the product and witnessing of the destruction. Commercial value or condition of the product is not an issue.   The requirement and service are simply to show a recognized neutral party witnessed the dumping.  That certificate in no way addresses the value or lack of value of the product.

Item 3 becomes more complicated as over the years industry jargon has significantly confused an intention to dump with documenting a lack of commercial value. An inspector is not in a position to know if the product has commercial value.  Supply and price often dictate when distressed product has value.  On a $10 market the product may have no value.  On the other hand, if the market is $30 that same product may have commercial value.    Establishing commercial value is up to authorities like DRC, PACA, the courts and others when needed.  

The most important thing dispute resolution bodies need is a description of the product.  The kind of description the CFIA, Destination Inspection Service (DIS) inspector is trained to provide, in the form of a condition and/or grade inspection.  Combining the data from the inspection certificate with market conditions and other factors is essential in determining if the product has any commercial value.

In conclusion, items 1 and 2 above only require a witness statement in the form of an official certificate as described in section 9 of the DRC Trading Standards.   

Item 3 above requires more than a witnessing of destruction.  It requires evidence to support the product has no commercial value.  The best evidence is a condition and or quality inspection showing excessive defects.  

We often see condition inspections with the wording “applicant states product to be dumped” in the remarks section.   That wording is certainly common and acceptable assuming everyone is in agreement.   It is not proof the product has no commercial value, nor is it proof the product was actually destroyed.  

In a contentious situation where communication and trust has broken down it is advisable to secure both a witness and a condition/quality inspection.   If the dispute winds up in a formal process that evidence will be crucial to your case.  

Categories
Uncategorized

Food Safety & Transportation

In July 2017 we wrote an article titled: Transportation: Rejection Due to Food Safety Concerns”.

That article focused on one specific example; a strange odor was noticed when the truck’s doors were opened to unload the product. Our suggestion was to call for a government inspection as soon as the foul odor is noticed when opening the doors and proceed to close the doors. Depending on the results of the inspection, a receiver may be able to reject the load due to Food Safety concerns. Heavy emphasis on “may be able!” 

In the past years, and particularly during the COVID-19 Pandemic era, we have encountered other situations where Food Safety was a concern after the carrier had an accident or had a mechanical issue. In these cases, the transportation company properly informed the receivers of the situation.  Except for some shifted pallets that were restacked or having moved the product to a new trailer, the loads appeared to be in good condition upon arrival. However, aside from the delivery delay, the receivers expressed Food Safety concerns immediately after they were informed of the situation.  They were worried about who handled these loads and if Food Safety protocols were followed.

DRC staff were able to informally mediate these cases and help the parties reach an amicable settlement. Given the current emphasis on Food Safety and the Pandemic, it is not difficult to understand that no one wants to be responsible for breaking Food Safety protocols. This could end up hurting the final consumer and possible liability for any legal ramifications. 

You may have heard DRC staff say that all claims must be proven and documented.   So, what does that mean in cases where food safety protocols have been broken, but there is no actual proof of a risk to consumers?

A claim of this nature is much different than whether or not the product meets good arrival, or if two parties agreed to change a contract.   We believe public health is of paramount importance and that food safety protocols protecting consumers will take precedent.   At minimum, acts which break the chain of custody and make traceability impossible could be treated as material breaches of contract justifying a rejection.   We are monitoring to see if this view in fact materializes.  

In the meantime, follow protocols and keep your trading partner advised of difficulties.  Do not change an instruction given by the owner of the product without their express permission, preferably in writing, otherwise you could assume liability.

Categories
Uncategorized

Accounts Receivable (AR) Insurance and DRC

Following a recent Canadian Produce Marketing Association webinar on AR insurance, coupled with increasing questions from members, DRC partnered with David Lousky (a trade credit insurance broker) to address some unanswered questions and provide you with some guidance. You can find the guidance in the form of a Q&A in the education section of the DRC website (www.fvdrc.com) or by following this link (https://www.fvdrc.com/accounts-receivable-insurance-and-your-drc-obligations/ ).

Categories
Uncategorized

ARBITRATION DECISION BRIEF: Private surveys and failing to comply with a settlement agreement

Continuing with our series of articles summarizing past DRC arbitration decisions. We believe this will help members to better understand how the DRC Dispute Rules and Standards (R&S) apply in the event of a dispute. DRC Dispute R&S state that all DRC arbitrations are private and confidential. As such, the names of all parties, including arbitrators and companies are not included. A reminder that DRC’s sole role is as administrator of the arbitration process; DRC does not participate in any hearings. Therefore, this summary is based solely on the arbitrator’s written decision and may not reflect important information shared with the arbitrator through written briefs or verbal testimony.

Case: DRC File #20132 – Parties Domiciled – Mexico and Canada

Facts

  • The Claimant shipped a load of different size avocados (12’s, 14’s, 16’s, 20’s, and 22’s in 4kgs. and 48’s, 60’s, and 70’s in 11kgs. cartons) to the Respondent on March 4, 2018. According to the invoice, the total price was US$45,636.80. 
  • The load arrived on Saturday, March 10, 2018. Upon arrival, Respondent sent an email to Claimant indicating there were some issues with the load. Claimant replied, indicating an inspection was needed.
  • On March 11th, Respondent requested a private survey and performed it on March 12th. The survey report shows on the 3456 cartons of size 12’s, 14’s, 16’s, 20’s, and 22’s (16% discolored spots, 3% bruises/soft areas, 3% excessive scars* for a 22% total defects). And on the 400 cartons of size 48’s, 60’s, and 70’s, the report shows (18% discolored spots, 5% bruises/soft areas, 3% excessive scars* giving us 26% total defects. Note: * On transactions where no grade standard has been agreed upon, permanent/quality defects such as scars do not count towards the total sum of average defects.
  • On March 13th, the results of the private survey were communicated to the Claimant. The parties had a few discussions regarding requesting a federal inspection. Even though the Claimant was not fully convinced, he decided that the federal inspection was no longer required and that an authorized discount would be granted for this load.
  • Respondent sent an account of sales to the Claimant on April 11, 2018, in which it shows a return of US$29,736.00 and requested a corrected invoice.
  • The Claimant did not accept Respondent’s proposed return and asked for the payment of the total invoice price, offering a credit in the amount of US$3,300.00 that the Respondent did not accept.
  • Negotiations continued after closing the informal process, where parties reached an agreement. Parties agreed on a proposal payment of US$29,736.00 and a credit note for US$15,900.80 divided into three payments of US$10,000.00 due by 10/13/2018, US$10,000.00 due by 11/13/2018 and US$9,736.00due 12/13/2018. Respondent failed to comply with the agreed payment, and the Claimant decided to commence the Arbitration process.

Issues

  • Whether there was an agreement between the parties to use an independent private commercial survey service.
  • Whether Respondent was responsible for paying the full invoice amount after failing to provide payments as parties agreed.

Arbitrator’s Analysis/Reasoning

Should the Respondent be obligated to pay US$45,636.80 in the absence of a federal inspection?

There is evidence in the file that both parties knew there were problems with the avocados. According to the DRC rules, a buyer who receives product in a deteriorated condition is obligated to request a federal inspection unless there is an agreement between the parties regarding the use of private surveys. While there is no written agreement that the parties had agreed to a private survey, negotiations for a discount started after receipt of the private inspection report. This certainly suggests that the seller knew of the produce condition.

Evidence in the file suggests the inspection was done in a timely manner. Also, it appears the discolored spots were not caused because of deterioration, but because of growing conditions. The results of the private survey suggest that the avocados failed to meet the DRC Good Arrival Guidelines.

Did the parties reach an agreement regarding how much the avocado load was worth?

Each party in their own pleadings stated there was an agreement on how much the Respondent owed the Claimant. Each party stated that the agreement was for Respondent to pay Claimant US$29,736.00.

This arbitrator could not find any reason why the US$29,736.00 was not paid to complainant.

Arbitrator’s Decision

Award in favor of Claimant, in the amount of US$29,736.00 plus US$2,500.00 for arbitration filing fees. A total of US$32,236.00 must be paid by Respondent, to Claimant, within the next 30 days.

 

DRC Comments

As a receiver/buyer, if you have received produce in deteriorated condition, you must request a federal inspection unless otherwise agreed. Alternative inspection services must be discussed, understood, and agreed upon, and preferably in writing. In this case, the arbitrator found the parties discussed adjusting the original invoice price based on the results of the inspection. In the eyes of the arbitrator, the Claimant waved his right to have a government inspection due to reaching an agreement on a price adjustment based on the results of the private survey.

Another important point in this decision that DRC members must take into consideration in their transactions is the importance of having proper documentation. In order for a contract or agreement to serve its intended purpose, it must be detailed. The rights and duties of each party should be defined clearly, with little room for interpretation. Issues such as timely performance, payment terms and termination rights should all be clearly documented. For example, in this case, parties agreed to settle the matter with a payment plan, where they specified the amount to be paid and the date on which those payments needed to de made. However, it was not specified that the settlement agreement would be terminated if Respondent failed to make those payments and would be responsible for paying the total invoice amount.

For more information regarding the sections of DRC Trading Standards applied to this dispute, refer to the following sections:

DRC Trading Standards:

Categories
Uncategorized

Membership Updates for June 15, 2021

Welcome New Members

From May 18 until June 15, 2021, DRC welcomed the following new members:

1.2.3. SANTÉ / 1.2.3. SANTÉ! (A d/b/a of 123 Santé – J’aime mon équilibre! inc.)

QC

Canada

12733137 CANADA INC.

QC

Canada

AGRICOLA SAN GALLAN S.A.C.

Lima

Peru

BIG P POTATOES (A d/b/a of 1082775 Ontario Limited)

ON

Canada

DEMOS FARM FRESH, LLC.

AZ

Canada

EXPORTADORA GREEN VALLEY LTDA.

Metropolitana

Chile

FAST TRACK IMPEX COMPANY LTD.

BC

Canada

FRUITS ET LÉGUMES ROYAL (Faisant également affaire sous 9170-0542 Québec Inc.)

QC

Canada

HARVEST FRESH PARTNERS LLC (Also d/b/a Harvest Fresh Partners)

FL

United States

MAFHH CONSULTANCY INC.

ON

Canada

MIRZA TRADING INTERNATIONAL (A d/b/a of 12218674 Canada Inc.)

ON

Canada

NEW ERA PRODUCE LLC

FL

United States

NOON & NOOR (A d/b/a of Noon & Noor Trading Limited)

BC

Canada

PASATIEMPO FARMS INC.

CA

United States

QUAIL H FARMS, LLC

CA

United States

SANDOL ENTERPRISE LTD.

BC

Canada

SERVICES ALIMENTAIRES FC (A d/b/a of 9153-6920 Quebec Inc.)

QC

Canada

SIMILIEN PRODUITS FRAIS INC.

QC

Canada

VAN RAAY FARMS LTD.

ON

Canada

WEST COAST VEGETABLE CO., INC.

CA

Canada

WORLD FRESH SEAFOOD LT

BC

Canada

 

DRC Membership: change in status

As of June 15, 2021, the following organizations no longer hold a DRC membership:

COMERCIALIZADORA DE FRUTAS DE TACAMBARO, S.A. DE C.V. (También haciendo negocios como Come Fruta)

Michoacan

Mexico

RAM VEGETABLE (A d/b/a of 2304953 Ontario Inc.)

ON

Canada

SQUEEZE SALES INC.

ON

Canada

 

For details regarding a change in status, please contact the office.

Important note: Following membership termination, the former member remains liable for claims arising prior to their termination if the claim is submitted to DRC by way of a Notice of Dispute within nine (9) months from when the claim arose or within nine (9) months from when the claimant ought reasonably to have known of its existence.

 

About DRC

DRC is a non-profit membership-based organization whose core work is business-to-business commercial dispute resolution for produce. DRC is a referee between parties when a purchase and sale do not go according to plan. Members adhere to a common set of trading standards and member responsibilities that promote fair and ethical trading for produce entering the North American marketplace. In Canada, membership in the DRC is a regulatory requirement to trade fresh fruits and vegetables (i.e.: buy, sell, import, export) unless excepted from the regulations. Today, DRC has members in 14 countries outside of North America, and membership continues to grow annually. Anyone exporting fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada must sell to a DRC member.

In addition to the DRC’s Operating Rules and Trading Standards, DRC offers a comprehensive, tailored suite of tools to build the knowledge and capacity of members to avoid or resolve disputes, including education, mediation and arbitration. DRC has ability to impose sanctions and disciplinary actions towards members who do not conduct business in accordance with the terms of their membership agreement.

To date, DRC has resolved claims in excess of $83 million dollars. Although arbitration is available, 80% of these claims have been settled in an average of 26 days through our informal consultation/mediation services. Arbitration awards are court enforceable in countries that are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or subsequent conventions.

To learn more, reach out to our Help Desk at info@fvdrc.com or (+1) 613-234-0982 or visit us at www.fvdrc.com.