[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-278920-105":53,"doc-detail-278920-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","arbitration-case-number-2463-decision","Arbitration Case Number 2463 - Decision","","Arbitration decision resolving a grain sales dispute between Cargill Inc. and Ortman Family Farms regarding a contract for 35,000 bushels of U.S. No. 2 yellow corn. The agreement and July 18, 2007 amendment set delivery timing for 2007 and then July 1–31, 2008. Cargill alleged the seller made an unequivocal non-delivery statement and cancelled under NGFA Grain Trade Rule 28, seeking $86,634.95. The arbitrators found a valid contract and confirmed the cancellation process details based on communications and exchanged documents.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":51,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/arbitration-case-number-2463-decision/278920/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/arbitration-case-number-2463-decision/278920.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Lucas Martin","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-23","2026-09-15",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":73},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What contract is at the center of Arbitration Case Number 2463?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"Ortman Family Farms and Cargill entered a contract for the sale of 35,000 bushels of U.S. No. 2 yellow corn, with delivery terms amended to a July 1–31, 2008 shipment period.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why did Cargill seek cancellation and damages?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"Cargill asserted that the seller made a statement indicating insufficient grain to deliver and therefore cancelled the contract, applying NGFA Grain Trade Rule 28 and seeking damages tied to the 35,000 bushels plus cancellation and roll fees.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did the arbitrators conclude regarding the contract?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The arbitrators concluded there was a valid contract between the parties and that the contract was followed by a confirmation signed by both parties, based on the submitted documents and communications.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},278920,1790134218,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":50,"category_name":51,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":73,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":73,"language":135,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":139,"read_time":9},8796095360427,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","National Grain and Feed Association  \n1250 Eye St., N.W., Suite 1003, Washington, D.C. 20005-3922  \nPhone: (202) 289-0873, FAX: (202) 289-5388, [E-Mail: ngfa@ngfa.org](E-Mail: ngfa@ngfa.org), [Web Site: www.ngfa.org](Web Site: www.ngfa.org)  \nDecember 2, 2010  \nArbitration Case Number 2463  \nPlaintiff: Cargill Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.  \nDefendant: Ron Ortman, Nick Ortman and Ortman Family Farms, Marion, S.D.  \nStatement of the Case  \nOn April 13, 2006, Ortman Family Farms (Ortman Farms) entered into contract number EMER-AH-44878 with Cargill Inc. (Cargill) for the sale of 35,000 bushels of U.S. No. 2 yellow corn, specifying delivery to Cargill at Emery, S.D., in October 2007. A subsequent amendment dated July 18, 2007 changed the shipment period to July 1-31, 2008. Cargill’s contract confirmation and amendment both were signed by Ortman Farms.  \nCargill stated that on July 24, 2008, Ortman Farms made what it termed an unequivocal statement to Cargill’s farm marketer that Ortman Farms did not have sufficient quantities of grain to deliver, and requested cancellation of the contract. Cargill stated it faxed a contract cancellation letter to Ortman Farms and proposed a payment arrangement for the equity due Cargill to be documented with a promissory note.  \nCargill stated on July 25, 2008 that Ortman Farms, by Ron and Nick Ortman, faxed a response letter to Cargill confirming receipt of and acknowledging the cancellation letter, and inquiring about any cancellation fees involved. This event was noted by Cargill’s performance marketing leader.  \nBased upon this communication, Cargill said it proceeded to cancel the contract on July 25, 2008. On Aug. 22, 2008, Cargill sent Ortman Farms a promissory note outlining a payment schedule and terms to which it said the parties had agreed.  \nOver the next few months, Cargill indicated that it made several attempts, without success, to contact Ortman Farms, both directly and through its attorney, to obtain payment of the equities due Cargill either through the executed promissory note or as an immediate payment.  \nCargill also submitted an earlier internal email string dated June 24 and June 25, 2008, indicating that Ortman Farms had been  \n“heavily overmarketed”(sic) in prior years and was beginning toemerge from the situation for 2008. It was indicated in the email string that Ortman Farms was oversold by the 35,000 bushels represented by the July 2008 contract, and that the only option was to cancel the contract.  \nCargill subsequently submitted a request for arbitration with the National Grain and FeedAssociation (NGFA) to resolve the matter. In doing so, Cargill claimed the following:  \nI. That NGFA Trade Rules applied to this dispute by means of a clause in its contract.  \nII. That the terms of its contract with Ortman Farms were in question and when Ortman Farms allegedly made an unequivocal statement to Cargill that it did not have sufficient quantities of grain to deliver, Cargill cancelled the contract.  \nIII. That there was abreach by the seller to perform under the terms of the contract per NGFA Trade Rule 28, Failure to Perform, evidenced when Cargill was told by Ortman Farms that it did not have sufficient grain. Upon this notification, Cargill asserted it had a right to cancel the contract.  \nCargill sought damages in this dispute in the amount of the contracted 35,000 bushels at the market price difference of $2.455 per bushel along with cancellation and roll fees, resulting in a balance due Cargill in the amount of $86,634 .95.  \nOrtman Farms, initsanswertothe statement of complaint submitted by Cargill, said that while it agreed to the contract and its terms, it refuted the allegation that it intended to cancel the contract on July 25, 2008. Ortman Farms claimed to have indicated in subsequent conversations with Cargill that it had sufficient grain and wanted to roll the contract to September 2008 delivery.  \n© Copyright 2010 by National Grain and Feed Association. All rights res","cbCaimMVQfUbRO5i","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimMVQfUbRO5i","pdf",93334,"English","# Statement of the Case\n## Contract background and amendments\n## Alleged non-delivery communications\n## Arbitration request and claimed damages\n# Decision\n## Valid contract and confirmations\n## Application of NGFA Grain Trade Rule 28\n## Failure-to-perform cancellation procedure","[{\"question\":\"What contract is at the center of Arbitration Case Number 2463?\",\"answer\":\"Ortman Family Farms and Cargill entered a contract for the sale of 35,000 bushels of U.S. No. 2 yellow corn, with delivery terms amended to a July 1–31, 2008 shipment period.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did Cargill seek cancellation and damages?\",\"answer\":\"Cargill asserted that the seller made a statement indicating insufficient grain to deliver and therefore cancelled the contract, applying NGFA Grain Trade Rule 28 and seeking damages tied to the 35,000 bushels plus cancellation and roll fees.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the arbitrators conclude regarding the contract?\",\"answer\":\"The arbitrators concluded there was a valid contract between the parties and that the contract was followed by a confirmation signed by both parties, based on the submitted documents and communications.\"}]","Arbitration Case Number 2463 - Decision | PDF",1789513833]