National Appeals Division of Department of Agriculture's interpretation of regulations and forms concerning delivery of commodities was reasonable and entitled to deference; government was not estopped from requiring physical delivery of the commodities onthe ground that a employee allegedly told plaintiff constructive deliveryof the commodities was sufficient.
the NAD determined that the "delivery" required by CCC-681-1 was physical delivery. This was not plainly erroneous. The regulations governing these transactions during the relevant time period referred to the "removal of" and"moving" of farm-stored commodities. See 7 C.F.R §§ 1421.20(a), (e); 1421.23(b)
Friday, February 24, 2006
Eighth Circuit agrees with USDA that farmer's sale of corn to his brother that stayed in his silo did not count as "delivery"; USDA forces farmer to repay marketing loan at higher rate Clason v.Johanns Case No. 051547P.pdf 02/22/06 District of Nebraska Farmer received marketing loan from USDA, which allowed him to repay loan at lower interest rate if he did not sell all the corn and the price declined below a set level. Farmer contended that before the deadline he sold corn to his brother but kept the corn in his silo. Farmer claimed the corn was "constructively delivered". Eighth circuit disagrees and holds that the USDA was could adopt regulations requiring physical delivery, even if local Farm Service Agency rep told farmer he could "constructively deliver" the corn.
Posted by stan_sipple at 9:24 AM