CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1980 Fla. LEXIS 4453
...Haile, Jr. of White & Case, Palm Beach, for Distilled *682 Spirits Counsel of the United States, Inc., amicus curiae. McDONALD, Justice. In an action for declaratory relief brought by Park Benziger & Co., the trial judge passed upon the constitutionality of section 565.095, Florida Statutes, which deals with the distribution and sale of intoxicating liquor....
...r contracts in existence on the statute's effective date, (2) whether a manufacturer or its representative may withdraw a particular brand or label of spirituous or vinous beverage from a distributor without going through the procedure prescribed by section 565.095(5), [1] and (3) whether such a manufacturer may appoint an additional distributor or distributors when that manufacturer has an existing distributor without first terminating the existing distributor in accordance with the provisions of section 565.095....
...Stat. After July 1, 1978, Park Benziger, dissatisfied with the sales level of Old Rarity, asked Southern either to give up Old Rarity or to allow Park Benziger to appoint a second distributor in addition to Southern. Southern objected and claimed that section 565.095(5) precludes the supplier from doing either of those things....
...y tolerable in light of the importance of the state's objective, or whether it unreasonably intrudes into the parties' bargain to a degree greater than is necessary to achieve that objective. Id. at 780. We agree with Park Benziger's contention that section 565.095(5) cannot be applied to the instant contract....
...estions involving the statute's interpretation. This cause is remanded to the circuit court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 565.095(5), effective July 1, 1978, reads as follows: WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTERED BRAND OR LABEL....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...5th DCA 1981) (statutory provision governing contract cancellation rights); 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contracts § 129, 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 257. In Somerset Importers, Ltd. v. Department of Business Regulation,
428 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), this Court, consistent with the above authorities, held that Section
565.095(5) (Chapter 565's liquor counterpart to the similar wine provision in the subject statute) became, by virtue of the above-stated principle of law, a part of the brand distribution contract which had been entered into between the manufacturer's predecessor and its distributor....
...good cause for withdrawal and that the manufacturer's status as a successor to the manufacturer with whom the distributor had contracted did not establish the requisite good cause. The subject Brand Withdrawal Law and its counterpart in Chapter 565 (Section 565.095(5)) were repealed effective May 31, 1985, two weeks after our opinion in Standard....
...epealed, the legislature amended Section
562.46 by adding the following language: ... further, an action involving a contractual dispute between a licensed distributor and its registered primary American source of supply, as defined in s.
564.045 or s.
565.095, may be filed in the courts of this state....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 6539
...a further extension of the contract, no such negotiations ever occurred. Instead, the parties continued to do business without a written agreement. 4 At the time the parties signed the original contract, Florida law contained sections
564.045(5) and
565.095(5), commonly referred to as the Brand Withdrawal Act (Act)....
...orida Beverage Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages,
503 So.2d 396, 398 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1987). Thus, in Somerset Importers v. Dept. of Business Regulation,
428 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1983), the Florida First District Court of Appeal held that section
565.095(5) is a statute which, by virtue of the above-stated principle of law, becomes a part of a brand distribution contract between a manufacturer and distributor....
...United States,
740 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir.1984). 20 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 21 AFFIRMED. * Honorable Jesse E. Eschbach, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation 1 These statutes provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Sec.
565.095(5), effective July 1, 1978, reads as follows: WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTERED BRAND OR LABEL.--No brand or label registered hereunder or any brand or label of wine may be withdrawn from any distributor after it has been sold by a manufacturer to any distributor unless good cause for its withdrawal is shown by the manufacturer....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4103, 1993 WL 39736
the Florida Supreme Court held that Fla.Stat. § 565.-095(5), which prescribes the procedure to be followed
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1988 WL 40211
...d a further extension of the contract, no such negotiations ever occurred. Instead, the parties continued to do business without a written agreement. At the time the parties signed the original contract, Florida law contained sections
564.045(5) and
565.095(5), commonly referred to as the Brand Withdrawal Act (Act)....
...orida Beverage Cory. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages,
503 So.2d 396, 398 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1987). Thus, in Somerset Importers v. Dept. of Business Regulation,
428 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1983), the Florida First District Court of Appeal held that section
565.095(5) is a statute which, by virtue of the above-stated principle of law, becomes a part of a brand distribution contract between a manufacturer and distributor....
...Southern Fabricating Co.,
764 F.2d 780, 781 (11th Cir.1985); Sanders v. United States,
740 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir.1984). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. . These statutes provided, in pertinent part, as follows: §
565.095(5), effective July 1, 1978, reads as follows: WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTERED BRAND OR LABEL....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13967
...This withdrawal of brands, made with no notice to Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the Division), was in direct contravention of the provisions of Chapters 564 and 565, Florida Statutes. Distributors of liquor and wine, such as Standard, are protected by §§ 564.-045(5) and 565.095(5) from manufacturers’ arbitrary acts of withdrawing brands or labels....
...Standard filed such a petition in October, 1983, alleging that ISC had failed to comply with the notice provisions of the statute *218 and that ISC had failed to show good cause for withdrawal as required by the statute. Thereupon, DBR issued a show cause order to ISC to determine why there had been no compliance with § 565.095(5)....
...As such, the order collides with this court’s earlier decision in Somerset Importers, Ltd. v. Department of Business Regulation,
428 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In Somerset, DBR’s finding that the statute applied to a successor manufacturer was appealed. Implicit in this court’s finding in Somerset that §
565.095(5) applies to a successor manufacturer is that more than a mere showing of an arm’s length transfer is required to establish good cause....
...We find DBR’s decision to be not only in contravention of Somerset but also contrary to the plain meaning of the statute which provides that no brand may be withdrawn “unless good cause for its withdrawal is shown by the manufacturer.” §§
564.045(5) and
565.095(5)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18484
petitioned appellee for a declaratory statement that § 565.-095(5) was inapplicable in this situation, where
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21963
PER CURIAM. This cause is before us on appeal from a declaratory statement wherein the agency, construing Section 565.095(5), Florida Statutes, pertaining to withdrawal of a registered brand or label, determined that the appointment by the manufacturer of a second distributor for a given brand or label was not shown to constitute a constructive withdrawal....
...There may be instances when the establishment of a second distributor may result in a constructive withdrawal from the first, (emphasis added) The Division concludes that Petitioner has failed to show or even allege that Respondents intended to formally withdraw Felipe Segundo pursuant to Section 565.095(5), Florida Statutes....
...The Division further concludes that even if Petitioner’s projections are correct concerning diminished profits resulting from the appointment of Hartley and Parker, the most Petitioner has established is that competition from Hartley and Parker will reduce its profits. Section 565.095(5), Florida Statutes, was not intended to stifle competition or to prohibit dueling in circumstances such as these....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15406
...SMITH, Jr., Acting Chief Judge. Responding to a petition for declaratory statement, Section
120.565, Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.), the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco of the Department of Business Regulation declined to answer a question as to the application of Section
565.095(5), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.), which was predicated on an interpretation of the statute not shared by the Division. In the Division’s opinion, the following language in Section
565.095(5) prevents manufacturer appointment of successor distributors during Division proceedings to review the manufacturer’s proposed withdrawal of brands or labels of spirituous or vinous beverages from an existing distributor, and does...
...No other distributors may be appointed by any manufacturer or representative of a manufacturer to carry the brands or labels already distributed on July 1, 1978 unless the division first approves the withdrawal from the existing distributor pursuant to this act. . Considering the entire context of Section 565.095(5), we agree with the Division....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19212
...ion requiring The Paddington Corporation as the then manufacturer or representative [as defined in Section
561.14(1), Florida Statutes (1979)] to continue supplying Southern with Bailey’s Irish Cream because no proceedings had been had pursuant to Section
565.095(5), Florida Statutes (1979) to withdraw this registered brand from Southern....
