425
submitted 1 week ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] mcv@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 days ago

Licensed? Can I download a nectarine now? These are physical, tangible things. Surely they are simply owned?

From what I understand, a company had exclusive rights to buy them, but didn't. What's a farmer to do in that case? Surely the party that promised to buy them but didn't, is the one that broke contract? Requiring fruit to rot on the trees is utterly unacceptable.

[-] cheers_queers@lemmy.zip 165 points 1 week ago

Amid the battle, Mora chose to give away the nectarines he had grown instead of leaving them to rot.

​However, on August 13, a jury at Fresno County Superior Court ruled that the Central Valley farmer did break his contract, although Giumarra was awarded no damages, according to documents obtained by the Fresno Bee.

Mora revealed in a video posted to TikTok that a judge had ruled that his trees had to be destroyed before the trial even began.

this is why they dont want us to own the means of production. all of us are glorified slaves who arent entitled to fucking food.

[-] GolfFoxtrotLima@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago

Bruh, the jury and judge are corrupt and terrible people. We Needs more judges and juries who are against corporate greed

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] anarchy79@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

You will own nothing, and you will be happy. Until morale improves.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 154 points 1 week ago

I knew it was gonna be this guy...

He licensed a specific breed of fruit tree, which is about the stupidest thing you can do.

Then he signed a marketing agreement, to only sell to that same company, the same one that he licensed it from. Which is literally the dumbest thing possible, because they have a financial incentive to fuck you over the second they establish their own orchids to meet supply. 100% of theirs will always sell first. With prices set as that as the full supply, yours become emergency backup that quickly rots.

Predictably, they refused like 50% of his crop one year.

Then he sold to someone else, and obviously got sued.

The only people who can legally own the trees now, is the company that sued him. And as he's very unlikely to want to sell an established orchid to them, or anyone else who would legally have to do business with that company, they have to be destroyed.

The fruit itself, likely ran out incredibly quickly. This was a huge story a couple months ago.

But it's one thing to do it with crops like wheat and corn that you at least plant every year. Fucking fruit trees live decades. Locking distribution rates without guaranteed sale is just asking to get squeezed out. The company likely planned on buying from him cheap, which again is the reason he's destroying them.

[-] snooggums@piefed.world 59 points 1 week ago

Predictably, they refused like 50% of his crop one year.

They should have been obligated to purchase all of the crop produced to match the restriction on who he could sell to.

[-] anotherandrew@lemmy.mixdown.ca 33 points 1 week ago

That’s the gotcha. It’s exactly how the judge should have ruled, but that’s what common sense would say, and contract law doesn’t require the contract to adhere to any kind of common sense.

It’s the kind of hole in a contract I’d have expected any competent contract attorney to catch, but perhaps the farmer didn’t use one, which is unfortunate.

[-] Natanael@infosec.pub 11 points 1 week ago

Business to business contracts isn't like consumer contracts, if it's not in the contract there's very little protect you

[-] frongt@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 week ago

The farmer, or rather his lawyer, didn't think ahead enough to get that in the contract. Any experienced futures lawyer would have made sure of it.

Hopefully the guy has crop insurance. Or the court rules to make the company pay to cut the trees down. Ideally also gets him some extra money to get a new crop going.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 33 points 1 week ago

Predictably, they refused like 50% of his crop one year.

Then he sold to someone else, and obviously got sued.

This shit should be illegal. If they want to lock him in to only selling to them, it should be required that they buy everything he's produced at an agreed on rate before he does any work.

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 week ago

I watched a documentary about these agricultural practices.

Taking the deal is not always about being dumb, i don’t know about this specific case but farmers are under immense pressure to accept deals from these corporations who often hold real local power.

You will sell your farm or get bullied into complacency.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] untorquer@quokk.au 19 points 1 week ago

...is just asking to get squeezed out.

Juiced, if you will.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 19 points 1 week ago

Orchid is a flower, orchard is the word you're looking for.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] chahn.chris@piefed.social 16 points 1 week ago

It’s sad that we just make these kinds of legal agreements about living things that take a long time to grow and live and then just capriciously say no sorry you have to slaughter them all because contracts?

We don’t deserve this earth.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Janx@piefed.social 91 points 1 week ago

The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

--John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

[-] anarchy79@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago
[-] OpenPassageways@programming.dev 43 points 1 week ago

A big part of the problem here is this licensed fruit.

It seems like the guy agreed to grow this fruit that needed to be exclusively licensed or you wouldn't be allowed to grow it.

He also agreed that the company he licensed the fruit from had exclusive rights to buy and market the fruit.

The company with exclusive rights apparently wasn't paying for all the fruit that was grown. Unclear why.

The jury ruled that the farmer broke the contract, but there's so much fucked up about the contract to begin with.

If the company didn't want the fruit, the farmer should be able to sell it or give it away. They decided NOT to exercise their exclusive rights.

And now the trees will be destroyed because they are unlicensed... What a dumb system.

[-] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

He sublicensed the right to sell the fruit back in 2017 but, then signed a marketing agreement with the Fruit company said only they can market and sell it.

His agreements seem to contradict each other.

Lots of people don’t read what they sign. But it’s also shitty of the company to trick him like that.

Read everything you sign. If you don’t understand, get a lawyer to read it.

[-] jnod4@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 week ago

How do you licence a fucking fruit ? How can you copyright food? Fuck this mf earth

[-] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 days ago

Because of monopolies and corporations, farmers are being pushed out, the only way for some farmers to afford to do it is to use licensing agreements like his.

They license the rights and get a payment up front or a monthly payment to help them with huge initial costs.

[-] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

For the record it's a patent, not copyright.

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] anarchy79@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You have an orchard unapproved by the komisariat, Farmer. You disrupt the logistical system you see. Perhaps you would like to name few names to make punishment more less harsher, yes?

Edit: bah there is a fair explanation for all of this below. Or above, depending on your point of view.

[-] nanometer1625@thelemmy.club 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

a judge had ruled that his trees had to be destroyed before the trial even began.

The article doesn't explain the judge's reasoning for this ruling, and I am struggling to understand why the judge would do this. The whole court case is due to Giumarra Brothers Fruit Company being unhappy that they were not receiving 100% of the nectarines from the trees that they licensed to the farmer. So how does destroying the trees help anyone?

[-] qarbone@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

It does seem like it's just a punishment for being generous.

[-] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

It's fine, we're just over here producing the same absurdities that (much) later result in clumsy-sounding stories like "and then the question became, to whom goes the bigger portion of the baby being split? jk what does the posing and response to the question itself reveal? for fucks sake how bad does this have to be, to stir us or anyone to do differently?"

I guess I added the bit on at the end.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
425 points (99.1% liked)

News

39069 readers
815 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS