Groente and Fruit from the Netherlands, defrauded us, a Panama pineapple producer, for the value of a full container of pineapples which they purchased from us in March 2020.
Here are the Relevant Facts of the Case:
1. On April 15, 2020 Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit received a 40 ft container of pines they contracted to purchase, FOB Panama, from Inversiones JPW of Panama. (purchase FOB Panama means that the buyer takes delivery of the goods at the port of Panama and takes on all responsibility for the goods from that point onwards.)
2. After receiving and opening the container, they sent an email to James Gooden of Inversiones JPW stating that the entire container was bad and needed to be “dumped”. Please note that this was during the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic and by this stage the Dutch government had ordered all hotels, restaurants and events shut (i.e. the regular clients of Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit were shut).
3. Upon receiving the email James called Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit and asked for details on what was wrong with the container. They stated that the quality was extremely poor and that if they could sell them at all, they would not be able to pay more than $1 or $2 per box, well below the contract price (it should be noted that Inversiones JPW has been sending containers of pines to buyers in Europe and the Middle East since 2019, all with no problem. Same farm, same packhouse, same boxes).
4. The call ended with James saying he would not agree to the “new” price and would get back to them. James then called a representative, with MICI attached to the Panama embassy in Holland, and asked him if could go and take a look at the container.
5. After getting a call from the representative in the Panamanian Embassy in Rotterdam, Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit told him they were going to deny access to the container citing COVID-19 as the reason. Access that they were legally obligated to provide.
6. The representative in the Panamanian Embassy in Rotterdam then spoke with James and recommended he hire ExpertiseBureau HDG, a certified Dutch independent fruit inspection company to perform an independent inspection to corroborate that the pines arrived bad.
7. On April 16 Hans of ExpertiseBureau HDG called Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit to arrange an inspection. They stated they would not allow access to the container, again citing COVID-19 as the reason.
8. Via subsequent WhatsApp text messages, Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit clearly indicated they had no intention of paying for the container of pines they contracted to purchase nor were they going to allow an independent inspection.
9. We then informed Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit that we would take legal action in Holland in order to collect payment.
10. On April 22, 2020 a certified letter from the law firm contracted by Inversiones JPW in Holland was sent to Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit demanding payment.
11. On May 6th Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit responded via their law firm stating that they would not be paying saying the entire container was bad. Included in their response was a quality control report from D-Quality Survey BV, that clearly looked false, saying that the entire container was bad and needed to be dumped. This report was dated April 15, but the pdf create date on the report was May 4 (and hence the report was clearly backdated). In addition, the supplier mentioned in the report was not Inversiones JPW, rather it was Hars & AMP Hagebauer B.V.
12. On May 20, 2020 a final demand letter was sent to Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit informing them that if they did not make the payment for the container that a lawsuit would be filed in Dutch court to force payment.
13. On May 28 2020 the attorney for Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit responded to the final demand letter indicating they had no intention of paying for the container. Legal proceedings are in process.
14. In June 2020 we contacted D-Quality Survey BV to enquire about the report they (supposedly) created. The person we spoke to confirmed that the report was on their system. This person also mentioned though that they were surprised by the many inconsistencies in the report and the limited amount of information (normally the information in these reports is more detailed, something other industry experts also confirmed to us). They also confirmed that a report like this would normally be sent to the client on the day, or the day after the inspection. They had no explanation of why the report we had was created 3 weeks after the supposed inspection or why Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit would only send us this report 3 weeks later and not on the day they advised us of the supposed issue. The person we contacted told us they would check the details of the report with the colleague who produced it and get back to us. Unfortunately, they never got back to us after this, and a request from us to categorically confirm whether they stood 100% by the validity of this report and whether they indeed visited Kraaijeveld Groente & Fruit on April 15th to perform the supposed inspection was denied.
Please note that an independent industry expert also noted from looking at the Maersk shipping manifest and arrival time of the container in the port in Rotterdam on April 15th, that they were very surprised an independent inspection at the Kraaijeveld Groente & Fruit premises could have been organized and taken place on that same day.
15. In June 2020 we also contacted the Dutch office of Hars & AMP Hagebauer B.V., the company mentioned as supplier (and client) on the (fake) quality report. They told us categorically that they never requested or paid for this quality report from D-Quality Survey BV. However, they did confirm that they purchased a full container of pineapples from Kraaijeveld Groente & Fruit on April 15th 2020.
16. In June 2020 we also contacted Maersk, the shipping company used to transport the container from Panama to Rotterdam. They confirmed that Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit did not make any claim against them for the loss of this container of pineapples. Please note that the normal process when a buyer purchases fruits FOB and they arrive in a bad state is to make a claim against the shipping company.
Questions to consider:
- If the pines were bad on arrival, why did Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit deny access to the representative in the Panamanian Embassy in Rotterdam to verify this?
- Why couldn’t the supplier have them inspected by an independent inspector?
- If the reason for not granting access to the container was the COVID-19 pandemic, how could the other “independent inspector” be allowed access?
Our assumption is that there was nothing wrong with the pineapples and hence allowing access to one of our inspectors would prove this.
- What were the readings on the temperature sensor that was placed inside the container at the packhouse immediately prior to closing and placing the seal, and why was there no mention of these in the quality report?
- Why was there no mention of the so-called “independent inspection” at the time it was allegedly done, rather it only appears after Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit received the payment demand letter from the supplier’s law firm 3 weeks after arrival?
- Why does the company who created the report, D-Quality Survey BV, not want to formally confirm to us they stand 100% behind the validity of the report and the fact that they indeed did an inspection at the premises of Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit on April 15th?
Our assumption is that the report was doctored several weeks after the facts, once Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit received our legal demand notices.
- Why didn't Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit make a claim against the shipping company for the arrival of the pineapples in a bad state, because they already took delivery of them at the port in Panama and this would have been the normal procedure? Also, if, as claimed, the full container was bad, then normally this would be due to an issue during shipping.
Our assumption is that Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit did not make a claim against Maersk because they knew they could not prove the validity of his claim of a supposed container of bad pineapples to them. Maersk is a large multinational company and the claims procedure is very rigorous. Clearly, if the quality report from D-Quality Survey BV was legit, then this could have been easily used to make a valid claim against Maersk. However, Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit clearly believed it to be more convenient to not pay and hence defraud the small Panamanian supplier.
This case has also been covered in Pa Prensa newspaper:
Kraaijeveld Tailor-made Fresh Produce Reviews
Groente and Fruit from the Netherlands, defrauded us, a Panama pineapple producer, for the value of a full container of pineapples which they purchased from us in March 2020.
Here are the Relevant Facts of the Case:
1. On April 15, 2020 Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit received a 40 ft container of pines they contracted to purchase, FOB Panama, from Inversiones JPW of Panama. (purchase FOB Panama means that the buyer takes delivery of the goods at the port of Panama and takes on all responsibility for the goods from that point onwards.)
2. After receiving and opening the container, they sent an email to James Gooden of Inversiones JPW stating that the entire container was bad and needed to be “dumped”. Please note that this was during the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic and by this stage the Dutch government had ordered all hotels, restaurants and events shut (i.e. the regular clients of Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit were shut).
3. Upon receiving the email James called Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit and asked for details on what was wrong with the container. They stated that the quality was extremely poor and that if they could sell them at all, they would not be able to pay more than $1 or $2 per box, well below the contract price (it should be noted that Inversiones JPW has been sending containers of pines to buyers in Europe and the Middle East since 2019, all with no problem. Same farm, same packhouse, same boxes).
4. The call ended with James saying he would not agree to the “new” price and would get back to them. James then called a representative, with MICI attached to the Panama embassy in Holland, and asked him if could go and take a look at the container.
5. After getting a call from the representative in the Panamanian Embassy in Rotterdam, Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit told him they were going to deny access to the container citing COVID-19 as the reason. Access that they were legally obligated to provide.
6. The representative in the Panamanian Embassy in Rotterdam then spoke with James and recommended he hire ExpertiseBureau HDG, a certified Dutch independent fruit inspection company to perform an independent inspection to corroborate that the pines arrived bad.
7. On April 16 Hans of ExpertiseBureau HDG called Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit to arrange an inspection. They stated they would not allow access to the container, again citing COVID-19 as the reason.
8. Via subsequent WhatsApp text messages, Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit clearly indicated they had no intention of paying for the container of pines they contracted to purchase nor were they going to allow an independent inspection.
9. We then informed Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit that we would take legal action in Holland in order to collect payment.
10. On April 22, 2020 a certified letter from the law firm contracted by Inversiones JPW in Holland was sent to Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit demanding payment.
11. On May 6th Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit responded via their law firm stating that they would not be paying saying the entire container was bad. Included in their response was a quality control report from D-Quality Survey BV, that clearly looked false, saying that the entire container was bad and needed to be dumped. This report was dated April 15, but the pdf create date on the report was May 4 (and hence the report was clearly backdated). In addition, the supplier mentioned in the report was not Inversiones JPW, rather it was Hars & AMP Hagebauer B.V.
12. On May 20, 2020 a final demand letter was sent to Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit informing them that if they did not make the payment for the container that a lawsuit would be filed in Dutch court to force payment.
13. On May 28 2020 the attorney for Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit responded to the final demand letter indicating they had no intention of paying for the container. Legal proceedings are in process.
14. In June 2020 we contacted D-Quality Survey BV to enquire about the report they (supposedly) created. The person we spoke to confirmed that the report was on their system. This person also mentioned though that they were surprised by the many inconsistencies in the report and the limited amount of information (normally the information in these reports is more detailed, something other industry experts also confirmed to us). They also confirmed that a report like this would normally be sent to the client on the day, or the day after the inspection. They had no explanation of why the report we had was created 3 weeks after the supposed inspection or why Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit would only send us this report 3 weeks later and not on the day they advised us of the supposed issue. The person we contacted told us they would check the details of the report with the colleague who produced it and get back to us. Unfortunately, they never got back to us after this, and a request from us to categorically confirm whether they stood 100% by the validity of this report and whether they indeed visited Kraaijeveld Groente & Fruit on April 15th to perform the supposed inspection was denied.
Please note that an independent industry expert also noted from looking at the Maersk shipping manifest and arrival time of the container in the port in Rotterdam on April 15th, that they were very surprised an independent inspection at the Kraaijeveld Groente & Fruit premises could have been organized and taken place on that same day.
15. In June 2020 we also contacted the Dutch office of Hars & AMP Hagebauer B.V., the company mentioned as supplier (and client) on the (fake) quality report. They told us categorically that they never requested or paid for this quality report from D-Quality Survey BV. However, they did confirm that they purchased a full container of pineapples from Kraaijeveld Groente & Fruit on April 15th 2020.
16. In June 2020 we also contacted Maersk, the shipping company used to transport the container from Panama to Rotterdam. They confirmed that Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit did not make any claim against them for the loss of this container of pineapples. Please note that the normal process when a buyer purchases fruits FOB and they arrive in a bad state is to make a claim against the shipping company.
Questions to consider:
- If the pines were bad on arrival, why did Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit deny access to the representative in the Panamanian Embassy in Rotterdam to verify this?
- Why couldn’t the supplier have them inspected by an independent inspector?
- If the reason for not granting access to the container was the COVID-19 pandemic, how could the other “independent inspector” be allowed access?
Our assumption is that there was nothing wrong with the pineapples and hence allowing access to one of our inspectors would prove this.
- What were the readings on the temperature sensor that was placed inside the container at the packhouse immediately prior to closing and placing the seal, and why was there no mention of these in the quality report?
- Why was there no mention of the so-called “independent inspection” at the time it was allegedly done, rather it only appears after Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit received the payment demand letter from the supplier’s law firm 3 weeks after arrival?
- Why does the company who created the report, D-Quality Survey BV, not want to formally confirm to us they stand 100% behind the validity of the report and the fact that they indeed did an inspection at the premises of Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit on April 15th?
Our assumption is that the report was doctored several weeks after the facts, once Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit received our legal demand notices.
- Why didn't Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit make a claim against the shipping company for the arrival of the pineapples in a bad state, because they already took delivery of them at the port in Panama and this would have been the normal procedure? Also, if, as claimed, the full container was bad, then normally this would be due to an issue during shipping.
Our assumption is that Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit did not make a claim against Maersk because they knew they could not prove the validity of his claim of a supposed container of bad pineapples to them. Maersk is a large multinational company and the claims procedure is very rigorous. Clearly, if the quality report from D-Quality Survey BV was legit, then this could have been easily used to make a valid claim against Maersk. However, Kraaijeveld Groente en Fruit clearly believed it to be more convenient to not pay and hence defraud the small Panamanian supplier.
This case has also been covered in Pa Prensa newspaper:
https://www.prensa.com/economia/la-compania-kraaijeveld-groente-fruit-con-sede-en-rotterdam-ha-sido-acusado-de-fraude-aprovechandose-del-covid-por-un-pequeno-productor-de-panama/