S. Clark Jenkins and Mary P. Jenkins - Page 15

          authority under various other sections of the fertilizer law in             
          an attempt to show a law enforcement purpose.  However, the                 
          payments at issue in this case stem from N.C. Gen. Stat. sec.               
          106-665 and Va. Code Ann. Sec. 3.1-106.13 (Michie 1994).  We need           
          not, and do not, decide the purposes of any other sections of the           
          fertilizer laws.                                                            
               Respondent argues that the legislature contemplated that a             
          separate civil action for damages would be the compensatory                 
          remedy for the consumers of deleterious fertilizers.  Respondent            
          reasons that since this compensatory remedy exists, the payments            
          at issue are not designed to compensate the consumer of the                 
          deficient fertilizer.  We do not agree.  N.C. Gen. Stat. sec.               
          106-665 applies to the sales of large and small quantities of               
          fertilizer.  The experts in this case testified that the reduced            
          crop yield from a deficient fertilizer is difficult to establish.           
          We consider it likely that this difficulty also would hamper a              
          plaintiff's ability to prove damages in a civil case.  Thus, we             
          do not agree that a civil action for damages is "the primary                
          compensatory or remedial mechanism" in the fertilizer law.  See             
          True v. United States, 894 F.2d 1197, 1205-1206 (10th Cir. 1990)            
          (stating that provision in the Federal Water Pollution Control              
          Act authorizing Government to recoup oil cleanup costs was                  
          primary compensatory mechanism).  If the legislature considered a           
          civil action for damages to be the primary compensatory remedy,             
          then we would see no purpose for the legislative edict that the             

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