Pappas v. Delis

BARNARD, P. J. Under a written contract dated September 1, 1945, the respondents sold a 40-acre crop of growing onions to the appellant. The purchase price was $16,000, of which only $1,000 was paid. In accordance with the understanding of the parties the appellant harvested the crop at his own expense some time during the month of October. This action was brought to recover the balance of the purchase price. Relying on the defense that the purchase price of this crop was contrary to OPA regulations, the appellant [394]introduced no evidence other than to bring out, upon cross-examination of the respondents’ witnesses, that at the time of the sale the parties did not know how many onions there would be in this field and that the OPA rules and regulations were not discussed by them. The court found in all respects in favor of the respondents, giving judgment for the full amount prayed for, and this appeal followed.

The appellant’s sole contention is that this transaction violated the provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (Pub. Law 421, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 56 Stats. 23) as amended, and the provisions of Revised Maximum Price Regulation 271 issued by the Office of Price Administration pursuant to the authority given thereby, and that it follows that the contract entered into between these parties was illegal and void.

The question presented depends upon the applicability, meaning and construction of Revised Maximum Price Regulation 271, relating to the sale of potatoes and onions. In a similar case the United States District Court, Southern District, Northern Division (George J. Barnett v. Atlantic Commission Company, Inc., 233 Civil), held that these OPA regulations were not intended to be applicable to a sale of growing crops in the field. In that case, the court pointed out that these regulations evidenced no intention to cover a growing crop as such, where the harvesting was to be done by the purchaser, where additional labor was called for, and where the factor of labor constituted an unknown quantity but one without which a price ought not to be fixed; and further pointed out that if the OPA intended these regulations to cover such a situation they could and should have directly so provided.

A careful reading of the regulations here in question (RMPR 271) strongly confirms the holding in the case just cited that they were not intended to cover the sale of growing crops in the field where the expense of harvesting is to be paid by the buyer and where many other factors may be involved, including further expense of cultivation and various matters which may interfere with and affect the production of a crop.