How can you order a farmer to destroy their trees? I hope he fights in a higher court. Wish I’d heard about the nectarine giveaway. I’d have gone to pick some.
How can you order a farmer to destroy their trees? I hope he fights in a higher court. Wish I’d heard about the nectarine giveaway. I’d have gone to pick some.
It’s a private agreement he signed voluntarily after he had the rights to grow and while he could sell to anyone for any price…
It’s legal in the same way I can sell you my house for a dollar, I could do it, but I’d be an idiot.
He didn’t have to sign that, he just did it.
There’s shit that should be illegal no matter how a contract is written. An example that comes to mind is how landlords love to put things in a lease that aren’t legally enforceable.
Then it sounds like you want an authoritarian nanny state…
Which actually isn’t surprising
Pre-emptive edit:
The point being if “unfair” contracts are illegal, then the government is the one saying what contracts are fair.
And a single look in the general direction of the American government, should I dictate why that’s a bad plan.
The most likely result, is the rich abuse it, and suddenly “fair” just means “fuck over the poors”.
Huh? There are no contracts at all without a state.
Whether or not a contract is “fair” has absolutely nothing to do with legality.
If I want to sell you my house for a $1, then that’s legal.
If you manipulate me, or coerce me, not legal.
That is how it is supposed to work.
If I can’t sell you my house for $1, what price will the state let me sell?
$1k? 10k? 100k?
What happens when there’s a market crash and the state doesn’t want to acknowledge by letting homes sell for less?
What about the other way? What if they say 100k is too much and no matter what my house can only be sold for 10k? Do you think that would be a land of cheap houses or do you realize it would quickly lead to only rentals ever being available and shit benefits from property taxes while landlord income skyrockets?
And I know, a one time sale of a house isn’t the same as contracted selling of a crop…
But trust me, this is easier to explain and pretty much the same thing.
Hell, I grew tobacco growing up, and like most crops the government will buy pretty much anything at below market price exactly for stuff like this. It’s a hugely important part of being any kind of farmer to know about this program
I don’t expect any of you to know anything about that
But a guy buying an orchard should.
And anyone signing any sort of sales and distribution deal, needs a lawyer.
If it’s exclusive you need the most lawyer you can afford
Contracts are meaningless without the state as an enforcement mechanism. The state has an interest in contracts, which it defines in like, ‘contract laws’. These laws put superseding constraints on contracts. I understand, that in the case of this farmer, no laws may have been broken. What I’m saying is that there could (and perhaps should) be such a law. Just like in a residential lease, the landlord can’t override legal protections.
No one is disagreeing with you.
Based on what? Like, what should the law be about?
You’re being vague and hand wavy and not thinking of what happens.
Are you banning exclusivity?
Are you saying the state needs to set “fair” prices?
What are you actually suggesting become illegal?
I was agreeing with a previous commenter, that if the company wants to enforce exclusivity, that should only be enforceable so long as they purchase his crop.
And you honest, hand to God…
Didn’t see that a grower can then just sign it and provide shit quality produce and the company has to buy it?
Like, you’ve legitimately taken the time thru these replies to stop and picture you’re idea, and that immediate problem didn’t show up with a big flashing light in your brain?
There’s already a federal government program that exists to buy below market value. I legitimately don’t know if necteraines is included, but even tobacco is. No matter how shitty it is, there’s a bare minimum the government will pay, and that goes in a giant warehouse in case there’s a supply issue.
There is a system set up, better than what you just thought of.
But because you don’t know anything about this you don’t know that.
Yes and manufacturing and mining occupations volunteered to work in horrible conditions before they were regulated. They had a choice. They could have just not worked those jobs. What idiots. /s
Or maybe he was coerced, or didn’t have any other options, or trusted the company was going to give him a fair shake. Maybe he is an idiot. That doesn’t mean that corporations with millions to spend on lawyers should be able to destroy peoples livelihoods because they can throw more money at the legal system. The law is supposed to protect everyone. And destroying perfectly good food on top of that?
Then it’s illegal and not valid…
What? He could have sold to anyone, and signed an exclusive distribution contract…
He had every other option and threw them all away
Then he’s a fucking idiot…
How the fuck are you this deep in this thread and still think food was destroyed?
Like, just in general, I’m not going to keep explaining the same shit, when you’re clearly not understanding this. I don’t even think you’re reading these comments.
Literally the first line of the fucking article:
From the other article:
They fucked him.
And he didn’t have other options, this kind of fruit is patented (also bullshit) and he had to sign on with this packer. Trees take years to grow, he can’t just switch over to another one at the drop of a hat.