12
served as an agronomist for the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture. In November 1991, Hight succeeded Stevens as
fertilizer administrator for the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture, a position he held until October 1994.
Both experts were credible and helpful witnesses. They gave
parallel testimony regarding the fertilizer industry and
administration of the fertilizer laws. They agreed in nearly
every material aspect of this case except the legislative purpose
for the penalty payments at issue.
Both experts agreed that segregation is the primary factor
leading to deficient fertilizer, and they also agreed that
deficiencies can be reduced but not eliminated. The experts
agreed that there are two losses to a farmer when the farmer
purchases a deficient fertilizer that is applied to the farmer's
crop. The first loss to the farmer is the cost of the deficient
fertilizer ingredient, which the farmer paid for but never
received. The second loss is the farmer's reduced yield at
harvest caused by the deficient fertilizer. They agreed that the
second loss, reduced yield at harvest, is nearly impossible to
measure, since crop yield is dependent on numerous factors.
The experts' opinions diverge when it comes to the purpose
of the penalty payments at issue. Stevens opined that the
purpose of the penalty for deficient fertilizers is to compensate
the user for any loss the deficient fertilizer has caused. Hight
opined that the purpose of the penalty for deficient fertilizers
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011