A Saskatchewan Provincial Court judge has ruled in favor of a farmer seeking remuneration from a certified seed supplier.
In a decision handed down Sept. 5, judge Robert Finley awarded Kent Smith $2,778.41 for the seed he bought from Bailey Brothers Seed Farm, of Milden, Sask.
Canadian Seed Growers’ Association spokesperson Colleen Acres said cases like this are “few and far between” and it proves the value of buying certified seed.
“If this particular farmer were to have bought common seed, there would have been no retribution for the fact that it didn’t produce for him.”
Read Also
Europe holds promise for Canadian lentils
Pulse Canada is trying to help boost lentil consumption in Europe, which is already the fourth largest market.
The judgment included the cost of the seed as well as incidental costs associated with the purchase, such as trucking, treatment and germination tests. Smith has already received the money from Bailey Brothers.
The seed that he bought on April 7, 2000, was 213.3 bushels of No. 1 certified AC Avonlea durum. He became suspicious about the quality of the seed when he noticed frost damage while treating it with Raxil.
He was told by the seller that the seed had a 92 percent germination rate but tests, including some conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, proved the actual germination rate was below the 80 percent required for the seed to be sold as No. 1 certified durum.
Smith did not plant any of the seed. Instead, he asked Bailey Brothers for his money back but was informed the company had a no-return policy.
The dispute ended up in small claims court where Bailey Brothers’ owner Roy Bailey admitted the seed was substandard, but argued that Smith should have accepted the same settlement as the other farmers who bought the seed, which was a cheque for 22 percent of the purchase price.
Seed quality
In his decision judge Finley said:
“The court accepts the defendant’s submission that there was no intentional misrepresentation as to the germination quality of the seed. Any such misrepresentation was innocent, but nevertheless, the seed sold was of a substantially inferior quality to what was represented. The defendant’s no-return policy cannot be supported under these conditions. The plaintiff did not get the seed (he) ordered.”
Smith said he is happy with the decision but he still harbors bad feelings.
“I’m a little frustrated that I had to go all the way to small claims court to get satisfaction for this. I got satisfaction but I sure had to go through a lot to get it.”
He said he has lost confidence in Canada’s certified seed system and would like to see a toll-free number printed on every blue certified seed tag that would put producers in touch with the inspection agency if they have a problem with the seed they bought.
“They see that blue tag and they think it’s the word of God and they figure that’s it, this seed is good. And when it isn’t, and occasionally that does happen, people don’t know who to go to,” Smith said.
Bailey said this is the only problem he has had in 20 years of business. He declined to comment further on the case.
