IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 92-4968
BREAUX BROTHERS FARMS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
TECHE PLANTING CO., INC. and
FRANCIS PAT ACCARDO,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Cross-Appellants,
versus
TECHE SUGAR CO., INC.,
SOUTH COAST SUGARS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants,
Cross-Appellees.
*****************************************************************
TECHE PLANTING CO., INC.,
FRANCIS PAT ACCARDO,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Cross-Appellants,
versus
TECHE SUGAR CO., INC.,
SOUTH COAST SUGARS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants,
Cross-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(6:90-CV-2536)
(June 10, 1994)
Before WISDOM, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:*
Breaux Brothers Farms, Teche Planting, and Francis Pat Accardo
sought relief from an alleged tying arrangement instituted by Teche
Sugar and South Coast Sugars. Breaux Brothers entered the
arrangement, and Teche Planting and Accardo refused to do so. We
found the tying arrangement, if one existed, not to violate
antitrust law. We deny rehearing for the reasons stated in our
opinion.1
Teche Planting and Accardo also seek augmentation of the
amounts awarded to them by the district court for work performed
before negotiations over renting the land failed. The district
court found ambiguous the agreement that Teche Sugar would
compensate Teche Planting and Accardo for the expenses they
incurred during lease negotiations. The court appropriately
appealed to the Civil Code for guidance in resolving the
ambiguity.2 The court compared the agreement to one between an
owner of land and a lessee who improves the land, the legal
relationship which most closely resembled Teche Sugar's arrangement
with Teche Planting and Accardo.3 To determine the value of the
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
1
Breaux Brothers Farms v. Teche Sugar Co., No. 92-4968
(May 4, 1994).
2
See La. Civ. Code art. 2054.
3
See La. Civ. Code Art. 2726.
2
expenses allowed according to this approach, the court
appropriately did not include overhead expenses and profit.4
Teche Planting and Accardo claim that the district court
mistook Teche Sugar for the owner of land when in fact Teche Sugar
merely let the land. The court did not, however, make this error.
The court merely employed the relationship between land owner as
lessor and farmer as lessee as an instructive analogy. The court
acted appropriately in doing so.
Teche Planting and Accardo also request reimbursement for
costs that the court disallowed. The court estimated the work and
material that Teche Planting and Accardo provided in anticipation
of the lease and from which they would not benefit. The repairs
improved the equipment that Teche Planting and Accardo took with
them when they left the farmland. Moreover, the district court's
disallowance of the cost of renting equipment finds adequate
support in the possibility that the farmers would have possessed
the equipment regardless of the expectation of a lease.
We find the legal basis of the court's award sound, and
conclude that the court did not make any clearly erroneous factual
findings in refusing to require Teche Sugar to reimburse Teche
Planting and Accardo for repair work from which they would later
benefit or by disallowing rental expenses. The district court
award stands in regard to the amount owed Teche Planting and
Accardo.
Petition for panel rehearing is denied.
4
Cross-appellants acknowledge as much.
3