Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-br6xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-13T12:17:06.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legal Environment Facing Economic Agents in Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Janie S. Hipp  and
Harriet F. Francis
Janie S. Hipp
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Harriet F. Francis
Affiliation:
Contracting and Organizations Research Institute, University of Missouri, Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agriculture has seen a steady movement toward the increased use of contracts. Agricultural contracts now guide the interrelationships of parties throughout the modern production system, extending well beyond the livestock sector. With this predominance come new issues that require us to reexamine contract theory and the roles of the parties. This review examines legislation, regulations, and recent court rulings in seemingly unrelated areas that have specific relationships to the development of contracts in production agriculture: environmental law and labor law.

Keywords

contractingenvironmentlaborlawliabilityrelationshipsriskD23D86K12K31K32

Information

Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , August 2005 , pp. 327 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abdalla, C.W. “The Industrialization of Agriculture: Implications for Public Concern and Environmental Consequences of Intensive Livestock Operations.” Penn State Environmental Law Review 10(2002):175.Google Scholar
Been v. OK Foods, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Oklahoma (2002).Google Scholar
Bouziden v. Alfalfa Electric Cooperative, Inc., 1 P.3d 450 (Okla. 2000).Google Scholar
Census Bureau. Census 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. Internet site: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.htm (Accessed August 15, 2003).Google Scholar
Centner, T.J. “Enforcing Environmental Regulations: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” Missouri Law Review 69(2004):697.Google Scholar
City of Tulsa v. Tyson (OK, 2000)Google Scholar
Commonwealth Life Insurance Company v. Cay, 365 P.2d 149 (Okla. 1961).Google Scholar
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), Public Law 96-510 (December 11, 1980), codified at U.S. Code 42 §§ 9601(9), 9602, 9603;Google Scholar
Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, § 302.4 (1989).Google Scholar
Cook Construction Co. v. Longcrier, 405 P.2d 165 (Okla. 1965).Google Scholar
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), Public Law 99-499, codified at U.S. Code 42 (October 17, 1986), §§ 11001 et seq.Google Scholar
Endres, J.M., and Grossman, M.R.. “Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Can State Rule Help?” Penn State Environmental Law Review 13(2004):1.Google Scholar
Hamilton, N.D. “Broiler Contracting in the United States—A Current Contract Analysis: Addressing Legal Issues and Grower Concerns.” Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 7(2002):43.Google Scholar
Haroldson, K.D. “Two Issues in Corporate Agriculture: Anticorporate Farming Statutes and Production Contracts.” 41 Drake Law Review 393(1992).Google Scholar
Hegar, G.A. Jr. “Adhesion Contracts, Debt, Low Returns and Frustration-Can American's Independent Contract Farmer Overcome the Odds?” Hamline Law Review 22(1998):213.Google Scholar
Kunkel, P.L., and Larison, S.T.. Agricultural Production Contracts. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 2003.Google Scholar
Matthews, S.F.Ag Production Contracts: Freedom to Contract, Public & Private Goods. University of Missouri 2001.Google Scholar
Miller, J.A. “Contracting in Agriculture: Potential Problems.” Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 8(2003):57.Google Scholar
Moeller, D.Livestock Production Contracts: Risks for Family Farmers: A Presentation prepared for the Farmers’ Legal Action Group, Inc. Internet site: www.flaginc.orgGoogle Scholar
Sierra Club v. Seaboard Farms, 387 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
Sierra Club v. Tyson Foods, 299 F.Supp.2d 693 (W.D. Ky. 2003).Google Scholar
Texaco v. Layton, 395 P.2d 393 (Okla. 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulsa County v. Braswell, 766 P.2d 341 (Okla. 1988).Google Scholar
Tyson v. Stephens, 783 S.2d 804 (Ala. 2000).Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). ERS Briefing Room on Agriculture Resource Management Survey. 2001. Internet site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ARMS/Google Scholar