Re: hamburgers & jobs

[ken hanly <northsunm@xxxxxxxxx>]

Surely non-GM seeds are just sold by Monsanto and
everyone else as ordinary goods. Buying GM seeds
usually involve contracts imposing various
restrictions on the buyer. For example, the buyer
cannot keep the seeds from the resulting harvest for
replanting etc.. Sometimes the sale is part of a wider
contract that might involve such matters as using a
certain pesticide guaranteed at a certain price or
even delivery of the harvest to a specified buyer
again at a guaranteed price- or at least that is my
understanding. It seems a bit strange to speak of the
farmer leasing GM seeds since they are in effect in
the normal situation planted and thus used up not as
in the case of say leasing a car where you would have
the use of the car for a certain length of time and
then the car would be returned to the entity that
leased it. I guess it would be helpful to look at a
typical contract. Perhaps there is one on line.

--- "David B. Shemano" <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Michael Perelman writes:
>
> >> I did not mean that the distinction is moral.
> Only that it is difficult to separate
> >> services & goods in many cases. Monsanto "rents"
> seeds; it does not sell them,
> >> because they don't want the farmer to own the
> seeds.  Are they supplying a service?
>
> If you are really interested regarding goods and
> services, the Uniform Commercial Code has
> definitions of goods, intangibles, etc.  The
> definitions are critical to determine what law
> applies to transactions (i.e. the Commercial Code
> provisions governing "sales" only applies to
> transactions concerning goods and not services) and
> how to obtain and perfect security interests.  There
> is lots of case law on these issues (e.g., if I hire
> a contractor to install a new kitchen and the
> contractor installs a defective appliance, are my
> remedies based upon the sale of goods or the
> provision of services?).
>
> The seeds are many things under the Commercial Code.
>  They are "goods" because they are "movable" and do
> not fit into any of the exclusions of the definition
> (e.g., accounts, chattel paper, general intangibles,
> etc.)  The seeds are Monsanto's "inventory," because
> the seeds are "goods . .. held by a person for sale
> or lease or to be furnished under a contract of
> service."  In the hands of the farmer/lessee, the
> seeds are "farm products."  Depending on how the
> transaction is documented, the "rent" owed by the
> farmer to Monsanto could be an "account","chattel
> paper" or "general intangible."  Because the seeds
> are "leased" and not sold to the customer, the
> Commercial Code provisions concerning sales would
> not apply.
>
> David Shemano
>