Nullity of contractual clauses in banana agro-industrial contractNulidad de cláusulas contractuales en contrato agroindustrial bananero

**V.- PRESCRIPTION:** Regarding the appeal filed by the special judicial representative of Operaciones Tropicales S. A., the first grievance concerns prescription and the applicable legislation for its calculation. The appellant's arguments that the applicable legislation is the Commerce Code for calculating the prescription period, which he considers to be one year, or in its absence the generic four-year period, are not shared. It must not be overlooked that the type of claim filed by Agromarina Oro Verde Sociedad Anónima is an action for nullity of contractual clauses, as established by Article 1023 of the Civil Code, hence the ten-year prescription stipulated in Article 868 ibidem is applicable. Article 1 of the Commerce Code is not applicable, because it refers to the fact that contracts between merchants are presumed to be acts of commerce, unless proven otherwise. Note, it has been proven that the plaintiff is an agricultural producer, this not being a merely commercial company but an agricultural one that engages in commercial activity, hence the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the co-defendants is not a contract between merchants, so as to apply the regulations of the Commerce Code regarding the issue of prescription of contract nullity clauses. Nor is the second paragraph of said first article applicable as the appellant claims, because even though it is true that Operaciones Tropicales's activity is the resale of fruit in the international market, the fact is that this commercial line of business, in reselling the fruit abroad, is not being questioned; rather, the object of the claim is the nullity of contractual clauses between the banana producer and the buyer, hence it is not a commercial act for only one of the parties, because that relationship was not simply the delivery of the goods in exchange for a price, but involved duties on the part of the buyers to supervise, advise, and condition the quality and production methods of the fruit, hence the buyers were involved from aspects such as what type of agrochemicals to use, the environmental standards that had to be met, the fruit packaging method, technical advice on production, supplies of raw materials such as boxes and palletizing, etc., as well as the placement and guarantee of the “DOLE” brand. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that this is a pure and simple purchase-sale of goods, but rather a complex legal relationship of long-term agricultural production for the life cycle of the banana crop, hence such a short prescription period of one year or even four years as the appellant intends is not admissible. This does not involve non-perishable or industrialized goods that can be stored and await the best market prices, but rather perishable goods which also have a complex production process whose market is limited to specific buyers, who are necessarily involved in the production methods because they condition quality standards for the product, production management and supply of agrochemicals, technical advice, financing (see folio 174-176), and compliance with environmental standards to guarantee their brand, as occurs in the case under examination. With great understanding of this particular agricultural productive activity, the First Chamber, through Voto 1026-F-2005 of 9:00 a.m. on December 23, 2005, which in turn cites other jurisprudential precedents such as Voto 324 of 3:10 p.m. on May 9, 2001, 523 of 3:55 p.m. on July 18, 2001, and 90 of 2:17 p.m. on January 26, 2001, ruled in favor of applying a ten-year prescription for this type of agrarian legal relationship, given its special and complex production nature, as it does not involve simple non-perishable goods, but also the social implication of agricultural work and the national interest in agrarian productivity, which differentiates it from a simple exchange of goods and price for commercial goods. The cited ruling, in its relevant part, states: "V.- The core point in this matter lies in determining the legal nature of the contract whose breach is alleged, in order to set the prescription period for the claims brought by the plaintiffs regarding it. It is pertinent to specify what this collegiate body has said regarding agrarian contracts and the general principles that inform them: \"I.- The agrarian contract is the instrument responsible for giving legal life to the productive activity. Through it, the relationships of the agrarian enterprise are organized. The cause of the contract will always be the agrarian enterprise, because it is born, lives, grows, and even becomes extinct through contracts. Therefore, it will be the enterprise that qualifies the economic and social function of the contract. Despite its unity as a category, historical evolution leads to the individualization of new common principles and further elements among the different contracts. The clearest distinction is between constitutive contracts for the organization of the enterprise and contracts at the service of the enterprise: the former have even been defined as contracts for the (global) organization of the enterprise, or more simply \"enterprise contracts,\" while the latter are exercise contracts, also called \"for the enterprise\" (...) VIII.- Contracts for the exercise of the agrarian enterprise, or simply \"for the enterprise,\" are instrumental and tend to facilitate the life of the enterprise. They are characterized by the fact that an agricultural entrepreneur will always be a party, and their stipulations will typically and inevitably respond to the demands of the enterprise. Through them, the aim is to procure for the agrarian enterprise one of the factors of production (land, capital, organization), or to promote or develop its exercise (capital, labor, market capacity). They may be stipulated before the entrepreneurial initiative is undertaken or during its course. Among them can be cited, among many, the agrarian credit insofar as it supplies the necessary capital for its operation, expansion, or development; agricultural labor contracts, since these are called upon to provide the enterprise with the necessary element to complete the different stages of production; cooperatives of the most diverse nature, because through them entrepreneurs generally organize—often without relinquishing their management powers—to find solutions, within associative criteria, both for the supply of goods and for the industrialization or commercialization of these under more favorable conditions; agroindustrial contracts through which agricultural entrepreneurs link up with the industrializers or marketers of their own products to—within a vertical integration process—be able to place their goods on the market with greater security, and in turn have the economic advantages of the higher stages—such as industrialization or commercialization—of the goods produced by them; and the formation of consortia or associations of producers, because through them entrepreneurs unite among themselves—in a horizontal integration—to manage to face other productive sectors, the challenges of the market, or to simplify their economic processes. The list can be endless because also the purchase-sale, contracts for making improvements, preparing the land for production, fumigation, the bill of exchange, leasing, and many others, when they fulfill a function as indicated, can be classified within the exercise contracts.-...” (No. 324 of 3:10 p.m. on May 9, 2001; in the same sense, Nos. 523 of 3:55 p.m. on July 18 and No. 90 of 2:17 p.m. on January 26, both from 2001).- VI.- In the present proceeding, the plaintiffs state that between them and the defendants there existed a verbal contract for financing, contribution, and injection of working capital, which they say was agreed upon at the end of August 1996, for the development and diversification of some poultry farms owned by the plaintiff companies, from which it can be inferred that these are agrarian enterprises dedicated to poultry activity and that, therefore, in accordance with the cited jurisprudence, the contract is of an agrarian nature. The corporate name of the plaintiff confirms its corporate purpose. In addition to the above, the nature indicated in the certifications issued by the National Registry (folios 90, 144, and 194), of the properties involved in this matter, Real Folios of the Province of Alajuela numbers 134294-000, 166989-000, and 196586-000: “CAFÉ 1 CASA GRANJA AVÍCOLA”, “PARA GRANJA AVÍCOLA CON TRES GALERAS” and “TERRENO DE POTRERO”, is consistent. Likewise, the judicial inspection carried out by Judge Mario Montoya Murillo on October 2, 2002 (folio 287), as well as the record drawn up by notary Hugo Sánchez Castillo, on September 26 of that same year, speak of the existence of poultry farms on the described lands. It is reasonable that on those dates there were no birds in the sheds and the facilities showed some deterioration, since more than five years had passed since the alleged contractual breaches argued, which, being a financing contract, would justify the abandonment of poultry activities by the plaintiffs. A corollary of the above, it is understood that the subjects in this process, for the most part, are agrarian entrepreneurs, and this process seeks the discussion of the breach of an exercise contract, in the terms stated, specifically, for financing for the exercise and expansion of an agrarian activity, which reveals, in light of this factual situation, the application of civil regulations for the specific topic under discussion: prescription. Although Article 1 of the Commerce Code presumes contracts between merchants to be commercial, this is a presumption that admits proof to the contrary. In the sub lite, the alleged breach occurred at the end of May 1997, according to the plaintiffs; therefore, the ten-year prescription period, provided for in the Civil Code for the type of actions undertaken by the plaintiffs, has not elapsed. The appellants are therefore not correct, and the grievance must be rejected…" Based on the foregoing, the ten-year prescription contained in the Civil Code must be applied, taking into consideration that this claim is an action for nullity of contractual clauses. Nor is the argument shared that, by the mere fact that it involves a FOB or FAS type purchase-sale, that is, using the regulations regarding incoterms, for that single fact it is also considered a merely commercial purchase-sale, because within agrarian exercise contracts, those instruments such as leasing, bills of exchange, trusts, incoterms, etc., are also used, which can be part of agrarian contracts, instruments that also occur and are valid within the dynamics of legal relationships involving agrarian activities and are not exclusive to them, but rather complement them; proof of this is the inclusion of the incoterms figure in the setting of the banana price through the Decree in question, which is a purely agrarian legal provision. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that the banana production and sale contract, even if agreed upon each year, is a long-term one, which also implicitly had the characteristic of continuity, and being a continuing contract, the prescription period would run from the moment that continuity ceases, not considering each contract year by year, because there is continuity involving productive cycles inherent to banana cultivation that do not coincide with the short prescription periods sought by the appellant defendant. Hence, the calculation must be considered from the rupture of the relationships between both parties, that is, July 3, 2000, when Mr. Peter Gilmore, General Manager of Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica S.A., notified Agromarina Oro Verde S.A. that it would not assume a commitment for additional fruit purchases, until the notification of this claim on January 15, 2003, to Standard Fruit Company and to Operaciones Tropicales on June 10 of that same year. The referred ten-year prescription period has not elapsed, and even if the appellant's thesis, not shared by this Tribunal, referring to the four years stipulated by the Commerce Code, were applied, that period has not elapsed either, according to the criteria cited above.

**VI.- ON THE NULLITY OF THE RELEASE (FINIQUITO):** Another grievance from the representative of the co-defendant Operaciones Tropicales S.A., concerns the impropriety of the nullity of the release (finiquito) signed between both parties. He considers there is a lack of reasoning by the a-quo in indicating that for its signing there was fear and dread due to direct pressures from the co-defendants towards Agromarina Oro Verde, since no evidence supports such an assertion. This argument from the appellant is shared, in that the nullity of the release (finiquito) signed between the parties on December 2, 1998, should not have been declared, because the existence of any defect in consent at the time of signing it was not convincingly proven. The reasoning of the a-quo for declaring the nullity of the referred release (finiquito) is not shared; however, this does not affect the exoneration of the co-defendants' liability, because the release (finiquito) in question was subscribed for the price agreed upon in the written contract, and it makes no reference whatsoever to including the price that should have been paid in accordance with Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 23923-MAG-MEIC, published on January 6, 1995, equivalent to the regulated price in Article 1 which, in its relevant part, states: "Article 1.- The minimum price of bananas in fruit for export, FOB Costa Rican port, per first-quality box of 18.14 net kilograms, shall be US$ 6.00. A box of 18.14 net kilograms is understood to be the one that in consumer markets is announced with that net weight, even though at the time of packaging it may weigh between 19 and 21 net kilograms. When the weight of the boxes is less than 18.14 net kilograms or greater than 21 net kilograms, the set minimum price shall be calculated proportionally." Hence, the release (finiquito) is valid for the prices paid according to the written contract, but in no way is it concluded that it includes the difference in the price stipulated in the Decree that was left unpaid, which is now being claimed in this process. Therefore, in this regard, the appealed judgment must be partially revoked insofar as it declares the nullity of the release (finiquito).

**VII.- ON THE SPRING BONUS (BONO DE PRIMAVERA) AND THE CEB’S:** The representative of Operaciones Tropicales S.A. argues that the disbursement of the spring bonus (bono de primavera) and the CEB’S (Certificado de Exportación Bananera, hereinafter CEB´S), form part of the price that his represented party paid to the plaintiff. He alleges a lack of reasoning and a flaw in disregarding the evidence offered by the defendants regarding this point, because witnesses [Nombre1] and [Nombre2] testified consistently that both the CEB's and the Spring Bonus (Bono de Primavera) formed part of the price received by the producers. He argues there is no nullity of the contract clauses, because if the base price is taken, plus the CEB’S and the Spring Bonus (Bono de Primavera), it would result that the producer would end up receiving more than what the decree indicates per exported box in 1996 and a sum slightly lower than that set by the decree in 1998. This argument from the appellant is not shared, because it is evident from the base contract document for the banana purchase-sale in its seventeenth clause (folios 81-82), that the amount the producer would receive for the CEB concept, that is, Certificado de Exportación Bananera, is an additional compensation not included in the prices agreed upon in that contract. Regarding the Spring Bonus (Bono de Primavera), it is an incentive paid to the producer on exports made in spring; it is not a bonus for the marketer, so it is not added as an amount in their favor when paying the due price. The concept of the Spring Bonus (Bono de Primavera) was expressed as such by witness [Nombre1] on folio 1162. Witness [Nombre2] on folio 1166 expresses that the spring bonus (bono de primavera) and the CEBS did form part of the price paid by the marketer; however, since there is an express clause in the base contract document, specifically the seventeenth clause, which excludes the CEBS as an independent item from the price to be paid, what was stated by the contracting parties in the signed document prevails over what was appreciated by the witnesses, who would be especially relevant for interpreting the contract if that aspect were confusing; however, it is clear when stipulated in the cited clause that the CEBS are not part of the agreed price. Such provision is clear and does not admit a different interpretation through testimonial evidence. The same applies to the Spring Bonuses (Bonos de Primavera), which are indicated to be an incentive for the producer, not for the marketer.

**VIII.- ON THE PUBLIC ORDER OF THE DECREE:** The representative of Operaciones Tropicales questions the public order (orden público) character given to the Decree in question, because he considers it to be unconstitutional insofar as it restricts individual and entrepreneurial freedom. The declaration of unconstitutionality of the referred Decree is not within the material competence of this Tribunal, so an analysis of this aspect is not appropriate to be carried out in this instance; if the petitioner persists in his interest on the matter, he may appeal to the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional). It is worth noting that the State has the power to regulate banana prices, and this is immersed within the State’s sovereign powers, which are manifested in the power to issue Decrees to define its public agrarian policies, and in the specific case, the mentioned Decree is in force for application to the conflict under study, hence its application is valid. Therefore, the decision by the a-quo to declare the nullity of the clauses that modify the price without conforming to what is stipulated in said Decreto Ejecutivo is shared, and it finds its legal basis in Articles 18 and 19 of the Civil Code. This Decree, as Agrarian regulation, is of public interest and contains inalienable rights for producers. As already stated, the constitutionality of said Decree should not be analyzed in this Court; it is worth mentioning as a reference of precedents, that regarding this special type of banana contract, there has been recognition in constitutional jurisprudence, especially concerning the setting of the minimum price, by way of decree, in favor of the producer. "The Law of the Corporación Bananera Nacional", establishes a corporation as a mixed-capital company with participation from the State and the National Banking System, with its own legal personality, and whose fundamental objective is \"....the national banana development, through the strengthening of the participation of Costa Rican companies in the production and, especially, in the commercialization of bananas\" (Article 2), one of its powers being \"To promote and maintain an equitable regime of relations between national producers and marketing companies, guaranteeing a rational and fair participation of each sector in the banana business\" (Article 4, subsection k). On the other hand, it has the function of \"recommending the minimum prices for the purchase and sale of bananas in the FOB (free on board) modality, which may be established by executive decree, as has already been done under the consumer protection law; and determining and promoting other diverse modalities of banana commercialization more favorable for the country, in accordance with the situation of the international markets\" (Article 4, subsection ll). The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in Voto No. 3016 at 11:36 a.m. on June 9, 1995, in response to a Judicial Consultation of Constitutionality of a Decree setting minimum prices and establishing tax impositions, analyzed the importance of these regulations, as an obligation of the State to intervene in the equitable distribution of the benefits produced by the exploitation of said activity, in accordance with a public interest in maintaining the productive system and the national economy: \"...the measures that the State adopts with the purpose of ensuring, among other things, its economic organization, which as intervention measures include the legal norms that control the prices of consumer articles; that the regulation of these prices does not affect the economic principle of \"market economy\" nor does it harm the freedom of enterprise, commerce, or private property; rather, the regulation represents a guarantee of uniformity of the basic conditions in the exercise of those rights; that the State's power to set these prices necessarily entails a limitation on freedom, but that limitation is reasonable because it is aimed at fulfilling the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution, that the mechanisms for controlling production and the distribution of wealth are guided by the principles of reasonableness and proportionality....in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitution, the State must procure the greatest well-being of all inhabitants and the most appropriate distribution of wealth\". Further on, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) indicates that this forms part of the consolidation of a Social State of Law where the principles contained in Article 50 in relation to 74 must prevail over individual rights such as freedom of enterprise. (see voto 5550-95 at 4:33 p.m. on January 31, 1995). [Nombre3], Enrique. Manual de Derecho Agrario y Justicia Agraria. Cabalsa, 2007. p.369. Regarding the price issue, important cases have been developed in the Agrarian Courts when the contractual breach by the agroindustrial company has been discussed, unjustifiably reducing the price to the producer, transferring the economic or market risk that the agroindustrial company must assume. Thus, the Agrarian Tribunal in judgment 671 at 8:50 a.m. on September 14, 2001, stated the following: \"In the sub judice, we are in the presence of an agroindustrial contract insofar as the productive sector is involved, formed in this case by small producers benefiting from a land assignment contract granted by the Institute of Agrarian Development, organized under a corporate form in order to offer a more competitive product, responsible for supplying the product from their plantations under certain quality standards, achieved through the use of specialized procedures, acquired thanks to the knowledge of the person who led that group, Mr.... and the related transnational company... . For its part, the industrializing-marketing sector represented by..., with a long history in contracts linked to banana cultivation, as evidenced by the evidence provided to the process, specialized in investments in this country and in..., among others. State intervention has been present since the pre-contractual stage, because for the granting of incentives, the negotiation had to be approved by CORBANA and was subject to the authorization of the Institute of Agrarian Development, given that they involved property awarded by said entity; furthermore, being a traditional productive activity with great repercussions on the national economy, the price of the fruit is determined via Government Decree, the parties in the contract being subject to such regulations. The foregoing allows us to conclude that we are in the presence of an agroindustrial contract—sic—subject to technical criteria, among them the double risk of agriculture, relating to natural elements affecting production and those inherent to the activity... The breach by the producers was not a unilateral or arbitrary decision. It was due to the attitude assumed by the marketing company, for which the sacrifice in production assumed by the defendant company was not sufficient, having to proceed with the reduction of the eighty dollar cents cited, allegedly due to the difficult financial situation they were going through; however, this was not proven in the process with suitable evidence, such as their financial statements, and even if it had been, the producers did not have to bear such a situation...\" In relation to this topic, the First Chamber of Cassation, in judgment No. 80 of February 12, 2003, ratified the existence of an agroindustrial contractual relationship between the parties, and the breach of the contracting conditions by the agroindustrial company, by attempting to transfer the market risk inherent to the agroindustry, which it is responsible for assuming, so that the producer would assume it, putting the latter at a disadvantage.

**IX.- ON THE PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL:** The plaintiff disagrees with the judgment in question because it considers that the existence of an economic interest group between both co-defendants should have been declared, given the voluminous and varied evidence in that regard. This Tribunal considers that regardless of whether or not an economic interest group exists, this aspect is not necessary to analyze in order to determine the actual participation of the co-defendant Standard Fruit Company as a direct party in the banana purchase-sale contracting with the plaintiff. Note that the declaration of an economic interest group between the co-defendants was not raised as a claim in the lawsuit; rather, the claims invoke the nullity of contractual clauses and the liability of both defendants for the payment of the price left unpaid to the plaintiff due to the banana purchase-sale based on a minimum price established by Decree. Based on this object of debate, on which the complaint was served, we proceed to analyze the existence of joint and several liability on the part of the co-defendant Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica Sociedad Anónima. In accordance with the principle of *iura novit curia* (the judge knows the law), and based on what was requested, the applicable law is determined. This Tribunal considers that we are in the presence of a reality contract signed by Standard Fruit Company with the plaintiff Agromarina Oro Verde S.A., even though the contract signed by the parties indicates that Standard's participation is for the execution of the contract between Operaciones Tropicales and the plaintiff. According to the evidence brought to the case file, it is determined that such an execution contract is nothing more than the creation of a legal appearance or legal fiction to hide the real and direct participation of the company Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica S.A.—hereinafter Standard—in the banana purchase-sale to the plaintiff. To reach such a conclusion, the following clear, precise, and concordant indications exist: a) There was direct participation by Standard in the drafting and formulation of the written contracts between Operaciones Tropicales S.A. and the plaintiff company. This is evidenced by the document visible on folio 881 in which information requested by Standard Fruit Company is forwarded for the signing of its banana purchase-sale contract with Agromarina Oroverde S.A.; and information is provided on the cultivated banana areas. See document dated March 5, 1996, on folio 881. b) Standard was the one who bought and paid for the fruit from the plaintiff, directly and making payment from its own bank accounts; this is evident from the statement of [Nombre4] on folio 1154 when answering question eighteen, when he states that the fruit purchase settlement checks were issued with checks from Standard's accounts. c) The administration and settlement of the fruit were the responsibility of Standard, who received the fruit and paid the price; this is evident from the statement of [Nombre4], as well as from the documentation running from folio 190 to 751, documents that refer to the settlement for fruit purchases made by Standard to Agromarina Oro Verde S.A. d) It was Standard, through its representative, who defined the modifications to the prices and bonuses to be paid to the plaintiff and made this known to the latter, as well as the quantity of fruit to be purchased.

This is demonstrated by the communications at folios 129, 140, 157, 158-159, documents signed by [Name5] at folios 929-931, dated December 18, 1996, and January 28, 1997, folio 931, as well as the one signed by said manager on May 27, 1997, visible at folio 933. e) The company Standard made requirements of the producers and the plaintiff for compliance with the ISO 14001 environmental management system, and food safety, and also provided them with training and instructions in that regard; this is evident from the communication visible at folios 131, 145, 147, 163-169, 182, the environmental program for the Agromarina Oro Verde farm visible at folios 951 to 954, the document at folio 955 dated October 22, 1998, and the documents at folios 956 and 957 dated April 6 and October 12, both of 1999, respectively. f) “Dole” is a trademark used by Standard Fruit Company, as is evident from the stationery used in the course of said company's business, such that in protection of said trademark, instructions were issued for compliance with quality standards, and the packaging used for the fruit sold by the plaintiff was under that same trademark. This is evident from the communications at folio 142, the document at folio 184 which records the delivery of material bearing said logo addressed to the General Manager of Standard, and the document dated November 22, 1996, visible at folios 937, 938, the memo dated February 25, 1997, and visible at folios 939, 940, 942, 944-946. g) The type of agrochemicals in the banana plantations had to be authorized by Standard; this is evident from a request made by the plaintiff to said company on October 17, 1997, according to the fax communication visible at folio 173, and the document at folio 176, the communication dated July 1997 visible at folio 948, and the document at folio 950. h) The company Standard also granted financing to the plaintiff as a producer, as part of the reciprocal benefits of the fruit purchase and sale; we have the financing approval document in favor of the producer visible at folios 174-175. i) The specifications or characteristics of the fruit were defined by Standard; this is observed according to the communication to Agromarina Oro Verde in a memo sent via fax on March 24, 1997, visible at folio 186, as well as the document at folio 932.

All the foregoing facts clearly indicate the participation of the co-defendant Standard as a direct party in the contracting, and not as a mere company contracted for its execution, because the decision-making in the practice of the contract determines its real participation as a principal party in the referenced banana purchase and sale contract. The consensual nature in this sense is present between the plaintiff and the co-defendants, one in written form with Operaciones Tropicales S.A., and the other in the form of a real contract (contrato realidad) in relation to the co-defendant Standard. To disregard this real contract (contrato realidad) is to shelter an abuse of right sanctioned in Article 22 of the Civil Code. Likewise, the provisions of Article 20 of the same code are also applicable, which states: “Acts carried out under the cover of the text of a norm, which pursue a result prohibited by the legal system, or contrary to it, shall be considered executed in fraud of the law and shall not prevent the proper application of the norm that was attempted to be evaded.” By analogy in applying this article, it is understood that under the appearance of an execution contract, Standard Fruit Company creates a legal fiction to hide its direct and real participation in the banana purchase and sale contract, which has its consensual nature in the manner in which it is carried out, based on a reality and not on the legal fiction whose nomenclature the parties gave it, with the manner in which it is developed being what allows for determining the reality of said contract in which the co-defendant Standard Fruit Co. has joint and several (solidaria) participation regarding its liability. Added to the foregoing is the provision of Article 21 of the same code, insofar as it provides that “rights must be exercised in accordance with the requirements of good faith.” For the reasons stated, the liability of the co-defendant Standard Fruit Company must also be declared for the payment of the items established in the appealed judgment against Operaciones Tropicales Sociedad Anónima.

"The Law of the National Banana Corporation" establishes a corporation as a mixed-capital company with participation of the State and the National Banking System, with its own legal personality, and whose fundamental objective is "....national banana development, through the strengthening of the participation of Costa Rican companies in the production and, especially, in the commercialization of bananas" (article 2), one of its powers being "To promote and maintain an equitable regime of relations between national producers and marketing companies, which guarantee a rational and fair participation of each sector in the banana business" (article 4 subsection k).- On the other hand, it has the function of "recommending minimum prices for the purchase and sale of bananas in the FOB (free on board) modality, which may be established by executive decree, as is already being done under the consumer protection law; and determining and promoting other various, more favorable banana marketing modalities for the country, in accordance with the situation of international markets" (article 4 subsection ll). The Constitutional Chamber, in Voto No. 3016 of 11:36 on June 9, 1995, in response to a Judicial Consultation of Constitutionality of a Decree establishing minimum prices and tax impositions, analyzed the importance of these regulations, as an obligation of the State to intervene in the equitable distribution of the benefits produced by the exploitation of said activity, in accordance with a public interest in maintaining the productive system and the national economy: "...the measures that the State adopts in order to ensure, among other things, its economic organization, that as intervention measures the legal norms that control the prices of consumer articles are included; that the regulation of those prices does not affect the economic principle of 'the market economy' nor does it harm the freedom of enterprise, commerce or private property, but rather, the regulation represents a guarantee of uniformity of the basic conditions in the exercise of those rights; that the State's power to set those prices necessarily entails a limitation on freedom, but that limitation is reasonable because it is directed at compliance with the provisions of article 50 of the Constitution, that the control mechanisms of production and distribution of wealth are guided by the principles of reasonableness and proportionality....in accordance with article 50 of the Constitution, the State must seek the greatest well-being of all inhabitants and the most adequate distribution of wealth".- Further on, the Constitutional Chamber indicates that this forms part of the consolidation of a Social State of Law where the principles contained in article 50 in relation to 74 must prevail over individual rights such as freedom of enterprise. (see voto 5550-95 of 16:33 on January 31, 1995). [Nombre3] , Enrique. Manual de Derecho Agrario y Justicia Agraria. Cabalsa, 2007. p.369.- In relation to the topic of price, important cases have been developed in the Agrarian Courts when the contractual non-compliance of the agroindustrial company has been discussed, unjustifiably lowering the price to the producer, transferring the economic or market risk that the agroindustrial company must assume. Thus, the Agrarian Court in judgment 671 of 8:50 a.m. on September 14, 2001, stated the following: "In the case at hand, we are in the presence of an agroindustrial contract insofar as the productive sector is involved, formed in this case by small producers who are beneficiaries of a land allocation contract granted by the Institute of Agrarian Development, organized under a corporate figure in order to offer a more competitive product, responsible for supplying the product from their plantations under certain quality standards, achieved through the use of specialized procedures, acquired thanks to the knowledge of the person who led that group, Mr... and the linked transnational company... . For its part, the industrializing-marketing sector represented by..., with a long trajectory in contracts linked to banana cultivation, as is evident from the evidence provided in the process, specialized in investments in this country and in..., among others. State intervention has been present since the pre-contractual stage, since for the granting of incentives the negotiation had to be approved by CORBANA and was subject to the authorization of the Institute of Agrarian Development, as it involved assets allocated by said entity; furthermore, as it is a traditional productive activity with great repercussions on the national economy, the price of the fruit is determined via Government Decree, the parties in the contract being subject to such regulations. The foregoing allows one to conclude that we are in the presence of an agro-environmental contract - sic- , subject to technical criteria, among them the double risk of agriculture, relating to natural elements that affect production and those inherent to the activity... The producers' non-compliance was not a unilateral or arbitrary decision. It was due to the attitude assumed by the marketing company, for which the sacrifice in production assumed by the defendant company was not sufficient, having to proceed with the reduction of the eighty cents of a dollar cited, as they claim due to the difficult financial situation they were going through; however, this was not accredited in the process with suitable evidence, such as their financial statements, and even if it had been, the producers did not have to bear such a situation..." In relation to this topic, the First Chamber of Cassation, in judgment No. 80 of February 12, 2003, confirmed the existence of an agroindustrial contractual relationship between the parties, and the non-compliance with the contracting conditions by the agroindustrial company, by attempting to transfer the market's own risk, which the agroindustry must assume, so that the producer would assume it, placing the latter at a disadvantage.- **IX.-** ON THE APPEAL OF THE PLAINTIFF: Disagreeing with the judgment at issue because it considers that the existence of an economic interest group between both co-defendants should have been declared given the voluminous and varied evidence in that sense, this Court considers that regardless of whether or not an economic interest group exists, it is not necessary to analyze this aspect to determine the real participation of the co-defendant Standard Fruit Company as a direct party in the banana purchase-sale contract with the plaintiff. Note that the declaration of an economic interest group between the co-defendants was not raised as a claim of the lawsuit, but rather the claims invoke the nullity of contractual clauses and the liability of both defendants for the payment of the price left unpaid to the plaintiff by reason of the banana purchase-sale based on a minimum price established by Decree.- Based on that subject of debate, on which the lawsuit has been transferred, we proceed to analyze the existence of joint and several liability on the part of the co-defendant Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica Sociedad Anónima.- In accordance with the principle that the judge knows the law, and based on what is requested, the applicable law is determined, this Court considers that we are in the presence of a reality contract entered into by Standard Fruit Company with the plaintiff Agromarina Oro Verde S.A., even though the contract signed by the parties indicates that Standard's participation is for the execution of the contract between Operaciones Tropicales and the plaintiff. According to the evidence brought to the case file, it is determined that such an execution contract is nothing more than the creation of a legal appearance or legal fiction to hide the real and direct participation of the company Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica S.A., -hereinafter Standard- in the banana purchase-sale from the plaintiff. To reach such a conclusion, the following clear, precise, and concordant indications exist: a) There was a direct participation of Standard in the drafting and formulation of the written contracts between Operaciones Tropicales S.A. and the plaintiff company. This is evident from the document visible on folio 881 in which information requested by Standard Fruit Company is submitted for the signing of the banana purchase-sale contract between it and Agromarina Oroverde S.A.; and it is informed about the cultivated banana areas. See document dated March 5, 1996 on folio 881. b) It was Standard that bought and paid for the fruit from the plaintiff, directly and making payment from its own bank accounts, this is evident from the declaration of [Nombre4] on folio 1154 when answering question eighteen, when he states that the fruit purchase liquidation checks were issued with checks from Standard's accounts. c) The administration and liquidation of the fruit was in charge of Standard, which received the fruit and paid the price, this is evident from the declaration of [Nombre4] , also from the documentation contained in folios 190 to 751, documents that refer to the liquidation for fruit purchase made by Standard to Agromarina Oro Verde S.A. d) It was Standard, through its representative, who defined the modifications of the prices and bonuses to be paid to the plaintiff and made this known to the latter, as well as the quantity of fruit to be purchased. This is demonstrated by the communications on folios 129, 140, 157, 158-159, documents signed by [Nombre5] on folio 929-931, dated December 18, 1996 and January 28, 1997 folio 931, as well as the one signed by said manager on May 27, 1997, visible on folio 933 e) The Standard company made requirements to the producers and to the plaintiff for compliance with the ISO 14001 environmental management system and food safety, and it also provided them with training and instructions in this regard; this is evident from the communiqué visible on folio 131, 145. 147, 163-169-, 182, environmental program for the Agromarina Oro Verde farm visible on folios 951 to 954, document on folio 955 dated October 22, 1998, and document on folio 956 and 957 dated April 6 and October 12, both of 1999 respectively f) "Dole" is a brand used by Standard Fruit Company as is evident from the stationery in the line of business of said company, so in protection of said brand, instructions were given for compliance with quality standards, as well as the packaging used for the fruit sold by the plaintiff was under that same brand. This is evident from the communiqués on folios 142, document on folio 184 stating delivery of material with said logo addressed to the General Manager of Standard, and document dated November 22, 1996 visible on folio 937, 938, memo dated February 25, 1997 and visible on folio 939, 940, 942, 944-946.- g) The type of agrochemicals in the banana plantations had to be authorized by Standard, this is evident from a request made by the plaintiff to said company on October 17, 1997, according to a fax communiqué visible on folio 173, and document on folio 176, communiqué dated July 1997 visible on folio 948 and document on folio 950 h) The Standard company also granted financing to the plaintiff as a producer, as part of the reciprocal benefits of the fruit purchase-sale, we have the financing approval document in favor of the producer visible on folios 174-175. i) The specifications or characteristics of the fruit were defined by Standard, this is observed according to a communiqué to Agromarina Oro Verde in a memo sent via fax on March 24, 1997 visible on folio 186, as well as document on folio 932.- All the foregoing facts are clear in indicating the participation of the co-defendant Standard as a direct party in the contract, and not as a simple company contracted for its execution, as the decision-making in the practice of the contract determines its real participation as a main party in the referred banana purchase-sale contract. The consensuality in this sense is present between the plaintiff and the co-defendants, one in written form with Operaciones Tropicales S.A., and the other in the form of a reality contract in relation to the co-defendant Standard. To ignore this reality contract is to protect an abuse of right sanctioned in article 22 of the Civil Code. Likewise, the provision of article 20 ibidem is also applicable, which states: *"Acts carried out under the text of a norm, which pursue a result prohibited by the legal system, or contrary to it, shall be considered executed in fraud of the law and shall not prevent the due application of the norm that was intended to be circumvented."* In analogical application of this article, it is held that under the appearance of an execution contract, Standard Fruit Company creates a legal fiction to hide its direct and real participation in the banana purchase-sale contract, which has its consensuality in the way it is made effective based on a reality and not on the legal fiction whose nomenclature the parties gave it, it being the manner in which it is developed that allows one to determine the reality of said contract in which the co-defendant Standard Fruit Co. has joint and several liability in terms of its responsibility. Added to the above is the provision of article 21 ibidem, which states "rights must be exercised in accordance with the requirements of good faith." Therefore, the liability of the co-defendant Standard Fruit Company for the payment of the items established in the appealed judgment against Operaciones Tropicales Sociedad Anónima must also be declared.- “ **V.-** REGARDING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (PRESCRIPCIÓN): With respect to the appeal filed by the special judicial attorney for Operaciones Tropicales S. A., the first grievance concerns the statute of limitations (prescripción) and the applicable legislation for its calculation. The appellant's arguments are not shared, in the sense that the applicable legislation is the Commerce Code (Código de Comercio) for calculating the limitation period, which they consider to be one year, or failing that, the generic four-year period. It must not be lost sight of that the type of lawsuit filed by Agromarina Oro Verde Sociedad Anónima is an action for nullity of contractual clauses, as established by Article 1023 of the Civil Code (Código Civil); therefore, the ten-year statute of limitations (prescripción) stipulated in Article 868 of the same code is applicable. Article 1 of the Commerce Code (Código de Comercio) is not applicable, because it refers to the fact that contracts between merchants are presumed to be commercial acts (actos de comercio), unless there is evidence to the contrary. Note, it has been proven that the plaintiff is an agricultural producer, this being not a merely commercial company but an agricultural company that carries out commercial activity; hence, the legal relationship between the plaintiff and co-defendants is not a contract between merchants, so as to apply the regulations of the Commerce Code (Código de Comercio) regarding the matter of the statute of limitations for nullity of contract clauses. Nor is the second paragraph of said first article applicable, as the appellant claims, because even though it is true that Operaciones Tropicales has as its activity the resale of fruit in the international market, the fact is that this commercial line of business in reselling the fruit abroad is not being questioned, but rather the object of the lawsuit is the nullity of contractual clauses between the banana producer and the buyer. Therefore, this is not a commercial act (acto mercantil) for only one of the parties, as that relationship was not simply the delivery of the goods in exchange for a price, but involved duties on the part of the buyers to supervise, advise, and condition the quality and forms of fruit production. Hence, the buyers were involved from aspects such as what type of agrochemicals to use, the environmental standards that had to be met, the form of fruit packaging, technical advice in production, supply of raw materials such as boxes and palletizing, etc., as well as the placement and guarantee of the "DOLE" brand. For this reason, it cannot be concluded that this is a pure and simple purchase-sale of goods, but rather a complex legal relationship of long-term agricultural production due to the life cycle of the banana crop. Therefore, such a short statute of limitations period of one year or even four years as the appellant intends is not admissible. These are not non-perishable or industrialized goods that can be stored and wait for the best market prices, but rather perishable goods which also have a complex production process whose market is limited to specific buyers, who are necessarily involved in the forms of production as they condition quality standards in the product, production management and supply of agrochemicals, technical advice, financing (see folio 174-176), and compliance with environmental standards to guarantee their brand, as occurs in the case under examination. With great understanding of this particular agricultural productive activity, the First Chamber (Sala Primera), through Voto 1026-F-2005 of 9:00 a.m. on December 23, 2005, which in turn cites other jurisprudential precedents such as Voto 324 of 3:10 p.m. on May 9, 2001, 523 of 3:55 p.m. on July 18, 2001, and 90 of 2:17 p.m. on January 26, 2001, held in the sense of applying a ten-year statute of limitations for this type of agrarian legal relationships, considering their special and complex production nature, as they do not involve simple non-perishable goods, but also the social implication of agricultural work and the national interest in agrarian productivity, which differentiates it from a simple exchange of goods and price of commercial goods. The cited vote, as pertinent, states: "**V.-** The core point in the present matter lies in determining the legal nature of the contract whose breach is alleged, in order to set the statute of limitations (prescripción) period for the claims brought by the plaintiffs regarding it. It is appropriate to specify what this collegiate body has said regarding agrarian contracts and the general principles that inform them: 'I.- The agrarian contract is the instrument responsible for giving legal life to the productive activity. Through it, the relationships of the agrarian enterprise are organized. The cause of the contract will always be the agrarian enterprise, because it is born, lives, grows, and even is extinguished through contracts. Therefore, it will be the enterprise that qualifies the economic and social function of the contract. Notwithstanding its unity as a category, historical evolution leads to the individualization of new common principles and further elements among the different contracts. The clearest distinction is between constitutive contracts of the enterprise's organization and contracts at the service of the enterprise: the former have been defined even as contracts of the (global) organization of the enterprise, or more simply "enterprise contracts," while the latter are exercise contracts, also called "for the enterprise" (...) VIII.- The exercise contracts of the agrarian enterprise, or simply "for the enterprise," are instrumental and tend to facilitate its life. They are characterized because an agricultural entrepreneur will always be a party, and their stipulations will typically and inevitably respond to the demands of the enterprise. Through them, one seeks to procure for the agrarian enterprise some of the factors of production (land, capital, organization), or to promote or develop its exercise (capital, work, market capacity). They may be stipulated before the entrepreneurial initiative is undertaken or during its development. Among them can be cited, among many, agricultural credit insofar as it provides the capital necessary for its operation, expansion, or development; agricultural labor contracts, as these are called to provide the enterprise with the necessary element to fulfill the different stages of production; cooperatives of the most diverse nature, since through them entrepreneurs generally organize—often without giving up their management powers—to find solutions, within associative criteria, both for the supply of goods and for the industrialization or commercialization of these under more favorable conditions; agro-industrial contracts through which agricultural entrepreneurs link up with the industrializers or marketers of their own products to—within a vertical integration process—be able to place their goods on the market with greater security, and in turn have economic advantages from higher stages—such as industrialization or commercialization—of the goods produced by them; and the formation of consortiums or producer associations, since through them entrepreneurs unite with each other—in a horizontal integration—to manage to confront other productive sectors, the challenges of the market, or to simplify their economic processes. The list can be endless because also the purchase-sale, contracts to make improvements, prepare the land for production, fumigation, the bill of exchange, leasing, and many more, when they fulfill a function as indicated, can be classified within the exercise contracts.-...' (Nº 324 of 3 hours 10 minutes on May 9, 2001; in the same sense, Nº 523 of 3 hours 55 minutes on July 18 and Nº 90 of 2 hours 17 minutes on January 26, both of 2001).- **VI.-** In the present process, the plaintiffs state that between them and the defendants there was a verbal contract for financing, contribution, and injection of working capital, which is said was agreed upon at the end of August 1996, for the development and diversification of some poultry farms owned by the plaintiff companies, from which it is inferred that these are agrarian enterprises dedicated to poultry activity and that, therefore, in accordance with the cited jurisprudence, the contract is of an agrarian nature. The corporate name of the plaintiff confirms its corporate purpose. Added to the above, the indicated nature is consistent in the certifications issued by the National Registry (folios 90, 144, and 194), of the properties involved in this matter, Real Estate Folios of the Province of Alajuela numbers 134294-000, 166989-000, and 196586-000: "COFFEE 1 HOUSE POULTRY FARM", "FOR POULTRY FARM WITH THREE SHEDS", and "PASTURE LAND". Likewise, the judicial inspection carried out by Judge Mario Montoya Murillo on October 2, 2002 (folio 287), as well as the record drawn up by notary Hugo Sánchez Castillo, on September 26 of that same year, attest to the existence of poultry farms on the properties described. It is reasonable that on those dates there may not have been birds in the sheds and the facilities showed some deterioration, since more than five years had already passed since the alleged contractual breaches argued, which, as it involved a financing contract, would justify the abandonment of the poultry activities by the plaintiffs. As a corollary of the above, it is established that the subjects in this process, for the most part, are agricultural entrepreneurs and this process seeks the discussion of the breach of an exercise agrarian contract, in the aforementioned terms, specifically, for financing for the exercise and expansion of an agrarian activity, which makes evident, in light of that factual situation, the application of civil regulations for the specific matter under discussion: the statute of limitations (prescripción). Although Article 1 of the Commerce Code (Código de Comercio) presumes contracts between merchants to be commercial, it is just that, a presumption that admits evidence to the contrary. In the case under examination, the alleged breach occurred at the end of May 1997, as the plaintiffs state. Therefore, the ten-year statute of limitations period, provided for in the Civil Code (Código Civil) for the type of actions undertaken by the plaintiffs, has not elapsed. The appellants are thus incorrect, and the grievance must be rejected…" Therefore, the ten-year statute of limitations (prescripción) contained in the Civil Code (Código Civil) must be applied, taking into consideration that the present lawsuit involves an action for nullity of contractual clauses. The criterion is also not shared that, by the mere fact that it involves an FOB or FAS type purchase-sale, that is, using the regulations referring to Incoterms, for that reason alone it is considered a merely commercial purchase-sale, because within agrarian exercise contracts, these instruments such as leasing, bill of exchange, trust, Incoterms, etc., are also used, which may be part of agrarian contracts, instruments that also occur and are valid within the dynamics of legal relationships that involve agrarian activities and are not exclusive of them, but rather complement them; proof of this is the inclusion of the Incoterms figure in the setting of the banana price by means of the Decree in question, which is a purely agrarian legal provision. It must also not be forgotten that the banana production and sale contract, even if agreed upon each year, is one of long duration, which also had the characteristic of continuity implicit, and being a continued contract, the statute of limitations (prescripción) period would begin to run when that continuity ceases, not considering each year's contracting year by year, because there is continuity by involving productive cycles inherent to the banana crop that do not coincide with the short limitation periods sought by the defendant appellant. Hence, the computation must be considered from the rupture of relations between both parties, being July 3, 2000, when Mr. Peter Gilmore, General Manager of Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica S.A., notified Agromarina Oro Verde S.A. that it would not assume a commitment for additional fruit purchases, until the notification of this lawsuit on January 15, 2003, to Standard Fruit Company and to Operaciones Tropicales on June 10 of that same year; the referred ten-year statute of limitations (prescripción) period has not elapsed, and even if the appellant's thesis, not shared by this Court, regarding the four years stipulated by the Commerce Code (Código de Comercio) were applied, that period has also not elapsed, according to the criterion cited above.

**VI.-** REGARDING THE NULLITY OF THE SETTLEMENT (FINIQUITO): Another grievance from the attorney for the co-defendant Operaciones Tropicales S.A. concerns the inadmissibility of the nullity of the settlement (finiquito) signed between both parties. They consider there is a lack of grounding by the lower court (a-quo) in indicating that for its signing there was fear and dread on the occasion of direct pressures by the co-defendants towards Agromarina Oro Verde, as no evidentiary means supports such an assertion. This argument from the appellant is shared, in the sense that the nullity of the settlement (finiquito) signed between the parties on December 2, 1998, should not have been declared, as the existence of any defect in consent at the time of signing it was not conclusively demonstrated. The lower court's (a-quo) reasoning for declaring the nullity of the referred settlement (finiquito) is not shared; however, this does not affect the relief of responsibility from the co-defendants, because the settlement (finiquito) in question was signed for the price that was agreed upon in the written contract, and it makes no reference whatsoever to including the price that should have been paid in accordance with Executive Decree No. 23923-MAG-MEIC (Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 23923-MAG-MEIC), published on January 6, 1995, equivalent to the price regulated in Article 1, which, as relevant, states: "**Artículo 1.-** The minimum price of fruit bananas for export, FOB Costa Rican port, per first-quality box of 18.14 net kilograms, shall be US$ 6.00. A box of 18.14 net kilograms is understood to be that which is advertised with that net weight in consumer markets, even if at the time of packing it may weigh between 19 and 21 net kilograms.

When the net weight of the boxes is less than 18.14 kilograms or greater than 21 kilograms net, the established minimum price shall be calculated proportionally. Accordingly, the settlement is valid for the prices paid under the written contract, but in no way does it conclude that the settlement includes the difference of the price stipulated in the Decree that was left unpaid, which is now being claimed in this proceeding. Therefore, in that regard, the appealed judgment must be partially revoked insofar as it declares the nullity of the settlement.

**VII.-** ON THE SPRING BONUS AND THE CEB’s: The attorney-in-fact of Operaciones Tropicales S.A. argues that the disbursement of the spring bonus and the CEB’s (hereinafter Certificado de Exportación Bananera, CEB’s) form part of the price that his principal paid to the plaintiff. He alleges a lack of reasoning and an error in disregarding the evidence offered by the defendants on this point, since the witnesses [Nombre1] and [Nombre2] consistently declared that both the CEB’s and the Spring Bonus formed part of the price received by the producers. He argues there is no nullity of the contractual clauses, because if one takes the base price, plus the CEB’s and the Spring Bonus, the producer would end up receiving more than what the decree indicates per exported box in 1996 and an amount slightly less than that set by the decree in 1998. This argument of the appellant is not shared, because it is evident from the base document of the banana purchase-sale contract in its seventeenth clause (folios 81-82) that the amount the producer would receive for the CEB, that is, the Certificado de Exportación Bananera, is an additional compensation not included in the prices agreed upon in that contract. As for the Spring Bonus, it is an incentive paid to the producer on exports made in the spring; it is not a bonus for the marketer, and therefore it is not added as an amount in their favor when paying the due price. Regarding the concept of the Spring Bonus, witness [Nombre1] so stated at folio 1162. Witness [Nombre2] at folio 1166 states that the spring bonus and the CEBS did form part of the price paid by the marketer; however, since there is an express clause in the base contract document, specifically the seventeenth clause, in which the CEBS are excluded as an independent item from the price to be paid, what was stated by the contracting parties in the signed document prevails over what was appreciated by the witnesses, who would be of special relevance to interpret the contract if such an aspect were confusing; however, it is clear from the stipulation in the cited clause that the CEBS are not part of the agreed price. Such a provision is clear and does not admit a different interpretation through testimonial evidence. Likewise with the Spring Bonuses, which are stated to be an incentive for the producer, not for the marketer.

**VIII.-** ON THE PUBLIC ORDER OF THE DECREE: The attorney-in-fact of Operaciones Tropicales questions the public-order nature given to the Decree in question, as he considers it to be unconstitutional insofar as it restricts individual and business freedom. The declaration of unconstitutionality of the referred Decree is not within the material competence of this Tribunal, and therefore the analysis of such an aspect is not appropriate to be carried out at this instance. If the petitioner persists in their interest in the matter, they may appeal to the Constitutional Chamber. It bears mentioning that it is the prerogative of the State to regulate banana prices, and this is immersed within the sovereign powers of the State, which are manifested in the power to issue Decrees to define its public agricultural policies, and in the specific case at hand, the mentioned Decree is in force for application to the conflict under study, hence its application is valid. Therefore, the ruling of the lower court is shared insofar as it declares the nullity of the clauses that modify the price by not conforming to what is stipulated in said Executive Decree, and it finds its legal support in Articles 18 and 19 of the Civil Code. This Decree, as Agrarian regulation, is of public interest and contains inalienable rights for the producers. As already stated, this is not the Venue where the constitutionality of said Decree should be analyzed. It is worth mentioning, as background reference, that regarding this special type of banana contract, there has been recognition in constitutional jurisprudence, especially concerning the setting of the minimum price, by way of decree, in favor of the producer. "The Ley de la Corporación Bananera Nacional" establishes a corporation as a mixed-capital company with participation of the State and the National Banking System, with its own legal personality, and whose fundamental objective is "....national banana development, through the strengthening of the participation of Costa Rican companies in the production and, especially, in the commercialization of bananas" (Article 2). One of its powers is "To promote and maintain an equitable regime of relations between national producers and marketing companies that guarantee a rational and fair participation of each sector in the banana business" (Article 4, subsection k). In addition, it is tasked with "recommending minimum prices for the purchase and sale of bananas in the FOB (free on board) modality, which may be established by executive decree, as has been done under the protection of the consumer protection law; and to determine and promote other diverse, more favorable banana commercialization modalities for the country, in accordance with the situation of international markets" (Article 4, subsection ll). The Constitutional Chamber, in Voto No. 3016 at 11:36 on June 9, 1995, faced with a Judicial Consultation of Constitutionality regarding a Decree fixing minimum prices and establishing tax impositions, analyzed the importance of these regulations as an obligation of the State to intervene in the equitable distribution of the benefits produced by the exploitation of said activity, in accordance with a public interest in maintaining the productive system and the national economy: "...the measures that the State adopts with the aim of ensuring, among other things, its economic organization, include, as intervention measures, the legal norms that control the prices of consumer articles; that the regulation of those prices does not affect the economic principle of the 'market economy,' nor does it injure the freedom of enterprise, commerce, or private property; rather, the regulation represents a guarantee of uniformity of the basic conditions in the exercise of those rights; that the authority of the State to set those prices necessarily entails a limitation on freedom, but that limitation is reasonable because it is directed at fulfilling the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution; that the mechanisms of control of production and distribution of wealth are guided by the principles of reasonableness and proportionality....in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitution, the State must seek the greatest well-being of all inhabitants and the most adequate distribution of wealth." Further on, the Constitutional Chamber indicates that this forms part of the consolidation of a Social State of Law, where the principles contained in Article 50 in relation to 74 must prevail over individual rights such as freedom of enterprise. (See Voto 5550-95 at 16:33 on January 31, 1995). [Nombre3], Enrique. Manual de Derecho Agrario y Justicia Agraria. Cabalsa, 2007. p.369. Regarding the issue of price, important cases have been developed in the Agrarian Tribunals when the contractual non-compliance of the agro-industrial company has been discussed, unjustifiably reducing the price to the producer, shifting the economic or market risk that the agro-industrial company should assume. Thus, the Agrarian Tribunal, in judgment 671 at 8:50 a.m. on September 14, 2001, stated the following: "In the sub judice, we are in the presence of an agro-industrial contract insofar as the productive sector is involved, formed in this case by small producers who are beneficiaries of a land-allocation contract granted by the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, organized under a corporate figure to offer a more competitive product, tasked with supplying the product of their plantations under certain quality standards, achieved through the use of specialized procedures acquired thanks to the knowledge of the person who led that group, Mr.... and the linked transnational company.... For its part, the industrializing/marketing sector represented by..., with a long history in contracts linked to banana cultivation, as is evident from the evidence provided to the process, specialized in investments in this country and in..., among others. State interference has been present since the pre-contractual stage, because for the granting of incentives, the negotiation had to be approved by CORBANA and was subject to authorization by the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, as it involved property adjudicated by that entity; furthermore, being a traditional productive activity with great repercussions on the national economy, the price of the fruit is determined by Government Decree, with the parties subjecting themselves in the contract to such regulations. The foregoing allows us to conclude that we are in the presence of an agro-environmental contract, subject to technical criteria, among them the double risk of agriculture, relating to natural elements that affect production and those inherent to the activity... The non-compliance by the producers was not a unilateral or arbitrary decision. It was due to the attitude assumed by the marketing company, for which the sacrifice in production assumed by the defendant company was not enough, having to proceed to the reduction of the eighty cents of a dollar cited, allegedly due to the difficult financial situation they were going through; however, this was not credited in the process with suitable evidence, such as their financial statements, and even if it had been, the producers did not have to bear such a situation..." In relation to said topic, the First Chamber of Cassation, in judgment No. 80 of February 12, 2003, ratified the existence of an agro-industrial contractual relationship between the parties and the non-compliance with the contractual conditions by the agro-industrial company by attempting to shift its own market risk, which it is the responsibility of the agro-industry to assume, so that the producer would assume it, placing the latter at a disadvantage.

**IX.-** ON THE APPEAL OF THE PLAINTIFF: The plaintiff disagrees with the judgment in question because it considers that the existence of an economic interest group between both co-defendants should have been declared, given that there is voluminous and varied evidence in that regard. This Tribunal considers that regardless of whether or not an economic interest group exists, such an aspect does not need to be analyzed to determine the real participation of the co-defendant Standard Fruit Company as a direct party in the banana purchase-sale contracting with the plaintiff. Note that the declaration of an economic interest group between the co-defendants was not raised as a claim of the complaint; rather, the claims invoke the nullity of contractual clauses and the liability of both defendants for the payment of the price left unpaid to the plaintiff due to the banana purchase-sale based on a minimum price established by Decree. Based on that subject of debate, on which the complaint was served, we proceed to analyze the existence of joint and several liability on the part of the co-defendant Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica Sociedad Anónima. In accordance with the principle that the judge knows the law, and based on what is requested, the applicable law is determined. This Tribunal considers that we are in the presence of a de facto contract (contrato realidad) entered into by Standard Fruit Company with the plaintiff Agromarina Oro Verde S.A., even though the contract signed by the parties indicates that Standard's participation is for the execution of the contract between Operaciones Tropicales and the plaintiff. According to the evidence brought to the case file, it is determined that such an execution contract is nothing more than the creation of a legal appearance or legal fiction to conceal the real and direct participation of the company Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica S.A., hereinafter Standard, in the purchase-sale of bananas from the plaintiff. To reach this conclusion, the following clear, precise, and concordant indications exist: a) There was direct participation by Standard in the drafting and formulation of the written contracts between Operaciones Tropicales S.A. and the plaintiff company. This is evidenced by the document visible at folio 881, in which information requested by Standard Fruit Company is sent for the signing of the banana purchase-sale contract between it and Agromarina Oroverde S.A.; and the cultivated banana areas are reported on. See document dated March 5, 1996, at folio 881. b) Standard was the one that bought and paid for the fruit to the plaintiff, directly and making payment from its own bank accounts; this is evident from the declaration of [Nombre4] at folio 1154 when answering question eighteen, when he states that the fruit purchase settlement checks were issued with checks from Standard's accounts. c) The administration and settlement of the fruit was the responsibility of Standard, which received the fruit and paid the price; this is evident from the declaration of [Nombre4], and equally from the documentation at folios 190 to 751, documents that refer to the settlement for the purchase of fruit made by Standard to Agromarina Oro Verde S.A. d) It was Standard, through its representative, who defined the modifications to the prices and bonuses to be paid to the plaintiff and communicated them to the latter, as well as the quantity of fruit to be purchased. This is demonstrated by the communications at folios 129, 140, 157, 158-159, documents signed by [Nombre5] at folio 929-931, dated December 18, 1996, and January 28, 1997, folio 931, as well as the one signed by said manager on May 27, 1997, visible at folio 933. e) The company Standard made requirements to the producers and the plaintiff for compliance with the ISO 14001 environmental management system and food safety, and also provided them with training and instructions in that regard; this is evident from the communication visible at folio 131, 145, 147, 163-169, 182, the environmental program for the Agromarina Oro Verde farm visible at folios 951 to 954, the document at folio 955 dated October 22, 1998, and the document at folio 956 and 957 dated April 6 and October 12, both of 1999, respectively. f) "Dole" is a brand used by Standard Fruit Company, as evident from the stationery used in the course of said company's business. Therefore, in protection of said brand, instructions were issued for compliance with quality standards, and the packaging used for the fruit sold by the plaintiff was under that same brand. This is evident from the communications at folios 142, the document at folio 184 where the delivery of material with said logo addressed to the General Manager of Standard is recorded, and the document dated November 22, 1996, visible at folio 937, 938, memo dated February 25, 1997, and visible at folio 939, 940, 942, 944-946. g) The type of agrochemicals on the banana plantations had to be authorized by Standard; this is evident from a procedure carried out by the plaintiff to said company on October 17, 1997, according to a fax communication visible at folio 173, and the document at folio 176, communication dated July 1997 visible at folio 948 and document at folio 950. h) The company Standard also provided financing to the plaintiff as a producer, as part of the reciprocal benefits of the fruit purchase and sale; we have the financing approval document in favor of the producer, visible at folios 174-175. i) The specifications or characteristics of the fruit were defined by Standard; this is observed according to a communication to Agromarina Oro Verde in a memo sent via fax on March 24, 1997, visible at folio 186, as well as the document at folio 932. All the foregoing facts clearly indicate the participation of the co-defendant Standard as a direct party in the contracting, and not as a simple company contracted for its execution, because the decision-making in the actual practice of the contract determines its real participation as a principal party in the referred banana purchase-sale contract. The consensuality in this sense is present between the plaintiff and the co-defendants, one in written form with Operaciones Tropicales S.A., and the other in the form of a de facto contract (contrato realidad) in relation to the co-defendant Standard. To ignore this de facto contract is to protect an abuse of right sanctioned in Article 22 of the Civil Code. Likewise, the provisions of Article 20 ibidem are also applicable, which states: "Acts performed under the cover of the text of a rule, which pursue a result prohibited by the legal system, or contrary to it, shall be considered executed in fraud of the law and shall not prevent the proper application of the rule that was intended to be evaded." By analogy in application of this article, it is found that under the appearance of an execution contract, Standard Fruit Company creates a legal fiction to hide its direct and real participation in the banana purchase-sale contract, which has its consensuality in the way it is made effective based on a reality and not on the legal fiction whose nomenclature the parties gave it. The way in which it is developed is what allows the reality of said contract to be determined, in which the co-defendant Standard Fruit Co. has joint and several participation regarding its liability. Added to the foregoing is the provision of Article 21 ibidem, which provides that "rights shall be exercised in accordance with the requirements of good faith." For the reasons stated, the liability of the co-defendant Standard Fruit Company shall also be declared for the payment of the items established in the appealed ruling against Operaciones Tropicales Sociedad Anónima.

“ V.- SOBRE LA PRESCRIPCIÓN: Con relación al recurso de apelación planteado por el apoderado especial judicial de Operaciones Tropicales S. A., se tiene como primer agravio lo referente a la prescripción y la legislación aplicable para la contabilización de la misma. No se comparte los argumentos del apelante en el sentido de que la legislación aplicable lo es el Código de Comercio para contabilizar el plazo de prescripción, el cual considera es de un año, o en su defecto el plazo genérico de cuatro años.- No debe perderse de vista, que el tipo de demanda planteada por Agromarina Oro Verde Sociedad Anónima lo es una acción de nulidad de cláusulas contractuales, tal y como lo establece el artículo 1023 del Código Civil, de allí le sea aplicable la prescripción decenal estipulada en el artículo 868 ibídem. No es de aplicación el artículo 1 del Código de Comercio, porque hace referencia a que los contratos entre comerciantes se presumen actos de comercio, salvo prueba en contrario. Nótese, se ha probado que la parte actora es productora agrícola, no siendo ésta una empresa meramente comercial sino una agrícola que desarrolla actividad comercial, de ahí que la relación jurídica entre actora y codemandadas no sea un contrato entre comerciantes, como para dar aplicación a la normativa del Código de Comercio en cuanto al tema de la prescripción de cláusulas de nulidad de contrato se refiere. Tampoco es de aplicación el párrafo segundo de dicho artículo primero como lo afirma el recurrente, por cuanto si bien es cierto Operaciones Tropicales tiene como actividad la reventa de fruta en el mercado internacional, lo cierto es que no se está cuestionando ese giro comercial de ésta al revender la fruta al exterior, sino que el objeto de la demanda lo es la nulidad de cláusulas contractuales entre la productora de banano y la compradora, de allí no se trate de un acto mercantil para una sola de las partes, pues esa relación no era simplemente la entrega de la cosa a cambio de un precio, sino que involucraba deberes por parte de las compradoras de supervisar, asesorar, condicionar la calidad y formas de producción de la fruta, de ahí que las compradoras estuvieran involucradas desde aspectos de qué tipo de agroquímicos utilizar, los estándares ambientales que se debían cumplir, la forma de empaque de la fruta, asesoría técnica en la producción, suministros de materia prima como las cajas y paletizado, etc, así como la colocación y garantía de la marca “DOLE”.- Por ello, no se pueda concluir se trata de una compra-venta pura y simple de bienes, sino de una relación jurídica compleja de producción agraria a largo plazo por el ciclo de vida del cultivo de banano, de ahí no sea admisible un plazo de prescripción tan corto de un año o bien cuatro años como lo pretende el apelante. No se trata de bienes no perecederos o industrializados que pueden guardarse y esperar los mejores precios de mercado, sino, de bienes perecederos los cuales además, tienen un proceso de producción complejo cuyo mercado es limitado a compradores específicos, quienes necesariamente se ven involucrados en las formas de producción pues condicionan estándares de calidad en el producto, manejo de la producción y suministro de agroquímicos, asesoría técnica, financiamiento (ver folio 174-176) y cumplimiento de normas ambientales para garantizar su marca, tal y como ocurre en el caso bajo examen.- Con gran comprensión de esta particular actividad productiva agraria, la Sala Primera mediante Voto 1026-F-2005 de las 9:00 horas del 23 de diciembre del 2005, el cual a su vez cita otros antecedentes jurisprudenciales como el Voto 324 de las 15:10 horas del 9 de mayo de 2001, 523 de las 15:55 horas del 18 de julio 2001 y 90 de las 14:17 horas del 26 de enero del 2001, en el sentido de aplicar una prescripción decenal para este tipo de relaciones jurídicas agrarias, atendiendo a su especial y compleja naturaleza de producción, al no tratarse de simples bienes no perecederos, sino también la implicación social del trabajo agrícola y el interés nacional en la productividad agraria, lo que lo diferencia de un simple intercambio de cosa y precio de bienes mercantiles.- El citado voto en lo conducente dice: “V.- El punto medular en el presente asunto estriba en determinar la naturaleza jurídica del contrato cuyo incumplimiento se acusa, a efecto de fijar el plazo de prescripción de las pretensiones intentadas por los actores respecto de este. Conviene precisar lo dicho por este órgano colegiado respecto a los contratos agrarios y a los principios generales que los informan: "I.- El contrato agrario es el instrumento encargado de darle vida jurídica a la actividad productiva. Por su medio se organizan las relaciones de la empresa agraria. La causa del contrato será siempre la empresa agraria, pues ésta nace, vive, crece e incluso se extingue a través de contratos. Por ello va a ser la empresa la encargada de calificar la función económica y social del contrato. No obstante su unidad como categoría, la evolución histórica lleva a individualizar nuevos principios comunes, y ulteriores elementos entre los diferentes contratos. La distinción más nítida está entre contratos constitutivos del ordenamiento de la empresa y contratos al servicio de la empresa: los primeros han sido definidos incluso como contratos de la organización (global) de la empresa, o más simplemente "contratos de empresa", mientras los segundos son contratos de ejercicio, o también llamados "para la empresa" (...) VIII.- Los contratos de ejercicio de la empresa agraria, o simplemente "para la empresa", son instrumentales y tienden a facilitar la vida de aquella. Se caracterizan porque siempre será parte un empresario agrícola, y sus estipulaciones responderán típica e inevitablemente a las exigencias de la empresa. Por su medio se pretende procurarle a la empresa agraria alguno de los factores de la producción (tierra, capital, organización), o para promover o desarrollar su ejercicio (capital, trabajo, capacidad en el mercado). Pueden ser estipulados antes de asumida la iniciativa empresarial o en el curso de su desarrollo. Entre ellos pueden citarse, entre muchos, el crédito agrario en cuanto suministra el capital necesario para su funcionamiento, expansión o desarrollo; los contratos de trabajo agrícola, por ser éstos los llamados a dotar a la empresa del elemento necesario para cumplir las diferentes etapas de la producción; las cooperativas de la más diversa índole, pues por su medio los empresarios generalmente se organizan -sin dejar muchas veces sus poderes de conducción- para encontrar soluciones, dentro de criterios asociativos, tanto al suministro de bienes como a la industrialización o comercialización de éstos en condiciones más favorables; contratos agroindustriales por medio de los cuales los empresarios agrícolas se vinculan con los industrializadores o comercializadores de sus mismos productos para -dentro de un proceso de integración vertical- poder colocar con mayor seguridad sus bienes en el mercado, y a su vez tener ventajas económicas de etapas superiores -como la industrialización o la comercialización- de los bienes por ellos producidos; y la formación de consorcios o asociaciones de productores, pues por su medio los empresarios se unen entre sí -en una integración horizontal- para lograr enfrentar a otros sectores productivos, los retos del mercado, o bien para simplificar sus procesos económicos. La lista puede ser interminable pues también la compraventa, los contratos para realizar mejoras, preparar la tierra para la producción, la fumigación, la letra de cambio, el leasing, y muchos otros más, cuando cumplan una función como la señalada pueden ser clasificados dentro de los contratos de ejercicio.-...” (Nº 324 de las 15 horas 10 minutos del 9 de mayo del 2001; en igual sentido las Nº 523 de las 15 horas 55 minutos del 18 de julio y las Nº90 de las 14 horas 17 minutos del 26 de enero, ambas del 2001) .- VI.- En el presente proceso los actores refieren que entre ellos y las demandadas existió un contrato verbal de financiamiento, aporte e inyección de capital de trabajo, que se dice concertaron a finales de agosto de 1996, para el desarrollo y diversificación de unas granjas avícolas propiedad de las sociedades actoras, de lo que se colige que se trata de empresas agrarias dedicadas a la actividad avícola y que, por lo tanto, de acuerdo con la jurisprudencia citada, el contrato es de índole agrario. La razón social de la demandante confirma su objeto social. Aunado a lo anterior, resulta conteste la naturaleza indicada en las certificaciones expedidas por el Registro Nacional (folios 90, 144 y194), de los bienes implicados en este asunto, Folios Reales de la Provincia de Alajuela números 134294-000, 166989-000 y 196586-000: “CAFÉ 1 CASA GRANJA AVÍCOLA”, “PARA GRANJA AVÍCOLA CON TRES GALERAS” y “TERRENO DE POTRERO”. De igual manera, el reconocimiento judicial efectuado por el Juez Mario Montoya Murillo el día 2 de octubre del 2002 (folio 287), así como el acta levantada por el notario Hugo Sánchez Castillo, en fecha 26 de setiembre de ese mismo año, dicen de la existencia de granjas avícolas en los terrenos reseñados. Es razonable que para esas fechas no hubiesen aves en las galeras y las instalaciones presentaran cierto deterioro, pues habían transcurrido ya más de cinco años desde los supuestos incumplimientos contractuales argüidos, que por tratarse de un contrato de financiamiento justificaría el abandono de las actividades avícolas por parte de los actores. Corolario de lo anterior, se tiene, que los sujetos en este proceso, en su mayoría, son empresarios agrarios y con este proceso se pretende la discusión del incumplimiento de un contrato agrario de ejercicio, en los términos dichos, concretamente, de financiamiento para el ejercicio y expansión de una actividad agraria, lo cual deja en evidencia, a la luz de esa situación fáctica, la aplicación de la normativa civil para el tema concreto en discusión: la prescripción. Si bien, el artículo 1 del Código de Comercio, presume mercantiles los contratos entre comerciantes, se trata de eso, de una presunción que admite prueba en contrario. En el sublite, el incumplimiento alegado se dio a finales de mayo de 1997, según exponen los actores, así las cosas, el plazo de prescripción decenal, previsto en el Código Civil para el tipo de acciones emprendidas por los actores no ha operado. No lleva pues razón los recurrentes y el agravio debe rechazarse…” Por lo expuesto, ha de aplicarse la prescripción decenal contenida en el Código Civil, tomando en consideración la presente demanda se trata de una acción de nulidad de cláusulas contractuales.- Tampoco se comparte el criterio que por el hecho de que se trate de compra venta tipo FOB o FAS, es decir utilizando la normativa referente a incoterms por ese sólo hecho tampoco se considera se trata de una compra venta meramente mercantil, porque dentro de los contratos de ejercicio agrarios, también se utilizan esos instrumentos como el leasing, letra de cambio, fideicomiso, incoterms, etc, que pueden ser parte de los contratos agrarios, instrumentos que también se dan y son válidos dentro de la dinámica de las relaciones jurídicas que involucran actividades agrarias y no le son excluyentes, sino que le complementan; muestra de ello es la inclusión de la figura de incoterms en la fijación del precio del banano mediante el Decreto de marras, el cuál es una disposición jurídica meramente agraria.- No debe olvidarse además, que el contrato de producción y venta de banano, aunque fuera pactado cada año, se trata de uno de larga duración, el que además tenía implícita la característica de continuidad, y al ser un contrato continuado, el plazo de prescripción correría a partir en que cesa esa continuidad no considerando año a año cada contratación, porque hay continuidad al involucrar ciclos productivos propios del cultivo de banano que no coinciden con los plazos cortos de prescripción que pretende la demandada apelante. De allí deba considerarse el cómputo a partir de la ruptura de las relaciones entre ambas partes, sea el tres de julio del 2000 cuando el señor Peter Gilmore, Gerente General de Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica S.A., le comunica a Agromarina Oro Verde S.A., que no asumirá compromiso de compra adicional de fruta, hasta la notificación de esta demanda en fecha 15 de enero del 2003 a Standard Fruit Company y a Operaciones Tropicales el 10 de junio de ese mismo año, no ha transcurrido el plazo de prescripción decenal referido y aún aunque se le aplique la tesis del apelante no compartida por este Tribunal, referida a los cuatro años que estipula el Código de Comercio, tampoco ha transcurrido ese plazo, conforme al criterio citado líneas atrás.- VI.- SOBRE LA NULIDAD DEL FINIQUITO: Otro agravio del apoderado de la codemandada Operaciones Tropicales S.A., es sobre la improcedencia de la nulidad del finiquito suscrito entre ambas partes. Considera hay falta de fundamentación por parte del a-quo al indicar que para la firma del mismo hubo temor y miedo con ocasión de presiones directas por las codemandadas hacia Agromarina Oro Verde, pues ningún medio de prueba sustenta tal afirmación. Se comparte este argumento del apelante en el sentido de que no debió declararse la nulidad del finiquito firmado entre las partes el dos de diciembre de 1998, pues no se demostró fehacientemente la existencia de algún vicio en la voluntad al momento de firmar el mismo. No se comparte la fundamentación del a-quo para declarar la nulidad del referido finiquito, sin embargo, ello no viene a incidir en el relevo de la responsabilidad a las codemandadas, por cuanto el finiquito en cuestión, se suscribió para el precio que se pactó en el contrato escrito, y el mismo no hace referencia alguna en cuanto a que incluyera el precio que debía pagarse de conformidad con el Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 23923-MAG-MEIC, publicado el 6 de enero de 1995, equivalente al precio regulado en el artículo 1 que en lo que interesa dice: “Artículo 1.- El precio mínimo del banano en fruta para la exportación, FOB puerto costarricense, por caja de primera calidad de 18,14 kilogramos netos, será de US$ 6,00. Se entiende por caja de 18,14 kilogramos netos la que en los mercados de consumo se anuncie con ese peso neto, aún cuando en el momento de empaque pueda pesar entre 19 y 21 kilogramos netos. Cuando el peso de las cajas sea inferior a los 18,14 kilogramos netos o superior a los 21 kilogramos netos, el precio mínimo fijado se calculará proporcionalmente.” .De allí el finiquito sea válido para los precios pagados según el contrato escrito, pero de ninguna manera se concluye el mismo incluya la diferencia del precio estipulado en el Decreto dejado de pagar, mismo que ahora se cobra en este proceso. Por lo que en ese sentido ha de revocarse parcialmente la sentencia apelada en cuanto declara la nulidad del finiquito.- VII.- SOBRE EL BONO DE PRIMAVERA Y LOS CEB’S: Aduce el apoderado de Operaciones Tropicales S.A., que el desembolso del bono de primavera y los CEB’S (Certificado de Exportación Bananera en adelante CEB´S), forman parte del precio que su representada le pagó a la actora.- Alega falta de fundamentación y vicio al desapreciar la prueba ofrecida por las demandadas respecto a este punto, pues los testigos [Nombre1] y [Nombre2] declararon en forma conteste que tantos los CEB's como el Bono de Primavera formaban parte el precio recibido por los productores. Aduce no hay nulidad de las cláusulas del contrato, pues si se toma el precio base, más los CEB’S y el Bono de Primavera, resultaría que el productor terminaría recibiendo más de lo que el decreto indica por caja exportada en el año 1996 y una suma ligeramente inferior a la fijada por el decreto en el año 1998.- No se comparte este argumento del apelante, pues se desprende el documento base del contrato de compra venta de banano en su cláusula décimo sétima (folios 81-82) , que el monto que recibiría el productor por concepto del CEB, sea Certificado de Exportación Bananera, es una compensación adicional no incluida en los precios pactados en ese contrato. En cuanto al Bono de Primavera es un incentivo que se paga al productor en las exportaciones que se hagan en primavera, no es un bono para el comercializador, por lo que no se le suma como un monto a su favor a la hora de pagar el precio debido.- Sobre el concepto de Bono de Primavera así lo ha expresado el testigo [Nombre1] a folio 1162.- El testigo [Nombre2] a folio 1166 expresa que el bono de primavera y los CEBS si formaba parte del precio que pagaba la comercializadora, sin embargo, al existir cláusula expresa en el documento contrato base, concretamente la cláusula décimo sétima en la que se excluye los CEBS como rubro independiente del precio a pagar, prevalece lo dicho por las partes contratantes en el documento suscrito y no lo apreciado por los testigos, los que serían de especial relevancia para interpretar el contrato en caso de que tal aspecto fuera confuso, sin embargo el mismo es claro al estipularse en la citada cláusula los CEBS no son parte del precio pactado, tal disposición es clara y no admite interpretación distinta a través de la prueba testimonial. Al igual con los Bonos de Primavera que se indica es un incentivo para el productor, no así para el comercializador.- VIII.- SOBRE EL ORDEN PÚBLICO DEL DECRETO: Cuestiona el apoderado de Operaciones Tropicales el carácter de orden público que se le da al Decreto de marras, por cuanto considera el mismo es inconstitucional en el tanto coarta la libertad individual y empresarial. La declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad del referido Decreto no es competencia material de este Tribunal, por lo que el análisis sobre tal aspecto no es oportuno sea realizado en esta instancia, si el gestionado persiste en su interés con el tema puede acudir a la Sala Constitucional. No sobra decir, que es potestad de El Estado el regular los precios del banano, y ello está inmerso dentro de los poderes de imperio del Estado, los cuales se manifiestan en la potestad de emitir Decretos para definir sus políticas públicas agrarias, y en el caso en concreto el mencionado Decreto tiene su vigencia para la aplicación al conflicto en estudio, de allí sea válida su aplicación.- Por ello, se comparte lo resuelto por el a-quo en cuanto declarar la nulidad de las cláusulas que modifican el precio no ajustándose a lo estipulado en dicho Decreto Ejecutivo, y encuentra su sustento jurídico en los artículos 18 y 19 del Código Civil.- Este Decreto como normativa Agraria es de interés público y contiene derechos irrenunciables para los productores.- Como ya se dijo, no es en esta Sede donde deba analizarse la constitucionalidad de dicho Decreto, vale hacer mención como referencia de antecedentes, que sobre este tipo especial de contrato bananero, se ha tenido un reconocimiento en la jurisprudencia constitucional, sobre todo lo relativo a la fijación del precio mínimo, por vía de decreto, a favor del productor. "La Ley de la Corporación Bananera Nacional", establece una corporación como sociedad de capital mixto con participación del Estado y del Sistema Bancario Nacional, con personalidad jurídica propia, y cuyo objetivo fundamental es "....el desarrollo bananero nacional, mediante el fortalecimiento de la participación de empresas costarricenses en la producción y, especialmente, en la comercialización del banano" (artículo 2), siendo una de sus atribuciones "Propiciar y mantener un régimen equitativo de relaciones entre productores nacionales y empresas comercializadoras, que garanticen una participación racional y justa de cada sector en el negocio bananero" (artículo 4 inciso k).- Por otra parte tiene la función de "recomendar los precios mínimos para la compra y la venta del banano en la modalidad de FOB (libre abordo), los cuales podrán ser establecidos mediante decreto ejecutivo, tal y como ya se viene haciendo al amparo de la ley de protección al consumidor; y determinar e impulsar otras diversas modalidades de comercialización del banano más favorables para el país, de conformidad con la situación de los mercados internacionales" (artículo 4 inciso ll). La Sala Constitucional, en el Voto No. 3016 de las 11:36 del 9 de junio de 1995, frente a una Consulta Judicial de Constitucionalidad de un Decreto por el cual se fijan precios mínimos y se establecen imposiciones tributarias, analizó la importancia de estas regulaciones, como una obligación del Estado para intervenir en la distribución equitativa, de los beneficios que produce la explotación de dicha actividad, conforme a un interés público en mantener el sistema productivo y la economía nacional: "...las medidas que el Estado adopta con el fin de asegurar, entre otras cosas, su organización económica, que como medidas de intervención se incluyen las normas jurídicas que controlan los precios de los artículos de consumo; que la regulación de esos precios no afecta el principio económico de "la economía del mercado" ni lesiona la libertad de empresa, de comercio o la propiedad privada, antes bien, la regulación representa una garantía de uniformidad de las condiciones básicas en el ejercicio de esos derechos; que la facultad del Estado de fijar esos precios conlleva necesariamente una limitación a la libertad, pero esa limitación es razonable por estar dirigida al cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Constitución, que los mecanismos de control de la producción y reparto de la riqueza, están orientados por los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad....de conformidad con el artículo 50 de la Constitución, el Estado debe procurar el mayor bienestar de todos los habitantes y el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza".- Más adelante, indica la Sala Constitucional que esto forma parte de la consolidación de un Estado Social de Derecho en donde deben prevalecer los principios contenidos en el artículo 50 en relación con el 74, sobre los derechos individuales como la libertad de empresa. (véase voto 5550-95 de las 16:33 del 31 de enero de 1995). [Nombre3] , Enrique. Manual de Derecho Agrario y Justicia Agraria. Cabalsa, 2007. p.369.- Con relación al tema del precio, se han desarrollado casos importantes en los Tribunales agrarios cuando se ha discutido el incumplimiento contractual de la empresa agroindustrial, rebajarse injustificadamente el precio al productor, trasladando el riesgo económico o de mercado que debe asumir el agroindustrial. Así, el Tribunal Agrario en la sentencia 671 de las 8:50 horas del 14 de setiembre del 2001, señaló lo siguiente: "En el subjúdice se está en presencia de un contrato agroindustrial en la medida está involucrado el sector productivo, formado en este caso por pequeños productores beneficiarios de un contrato de asignación de tierras otorgado por el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, organizados bajo una figura societaria a fin de ofrecer un producto más competitivo, encargado de suministrar el producto de sus plantaciones bajo ciertos estándares de calidad, logrados mediante la utilización de procedimientos especializados, adquiridos gracias a los conocimientos de quien lideró ese grupo, señor... y a la empresa transnacional vinculada... . Por su parte, el sector industrializador comercializador representado por..., con una larga trayectoria en contratos vinculados con el cultivo de banano, según se desprende de las probanzas aportadas al proceso, especializado en inversiones en este país y en..., entre otros. La injerencia estatal ha estado presente desde la etapa precontractual, pues para el otorgamiento de incentivos la negociación debió ser aprobada por CORBANA y estuvo sujeta a la autorización del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, al tratarse de bienes adjudicados por dicho ente; además, al tratarse de una actividad productiva tradicional de grandes repercusiones en la economía nacional, el precio de la fruta es determinado vía Decreto de Gobierno, sujetándose las partes en el contrato a tales regulaciones. Lo anterior permite concluir, se está en presencia de un contrato agroambiental - sic- , sujeto a criterios técnicos, entre ellos el doble riesgo de la agricultura, relativo a elementos naturales que inciden en la producción y a los propios de la actividad... El incumplimiento de los productores no fue una decisión unilateral ni arbitraria. Se debió a la actitud asumida por la empresa comercializadora, para la cual el sacrificio en la producción asumidos por la empresa demandada no fue suficiente, debiendo proceder al rebajo de los ochenta centavos de dólar citados, según aducen por la difícil situación financiera por la que atravesaban; no obstante, ésta no fue acreditada en el proceso con prueba idónea, como serían sus estados financieros y aunque así hubiera sido, no tenían los productores que cargar con tal situación..." En relación con dicho tema, la Sala Primera de Casación, en sentencia No. 80 del 12 de febrero del 2003, ratificó la existencia de una relación contractual agroindustrial entre las partes, y el incumplimiento de las condiciones de la contratación por parte de la empresa agroindustrial, al pretender trasladar el riesgo propio del mercado, que le corresponde asumirlo a la agroindustria, para que lo asumiera el productor, poniendo en desventaja a éste.- IX.- SOBRE LA APELACIÓN DE LA PARTE ACTORA: Disconforme la parte actora con la sentencia de marras por cuanto considera debió declararse la existencia de un grupo de interés económico entre ambas codemandadas al existir voluminosa y variada prueba en ese sentido, considera este Tribunal que independientemente de que exista o no un grupo de interés económico, tal aspecto no es necesario analizar para determinar la participación real de la codemandada Standard Fruit Company como parte directa en la contratación de compra venta de banano con la actora. Nótese no se planteó como pretensión de la demanda la declaratoria de un grupo de interés económico entre las codemandadas, sino que las pretensiones invocan la nulidad de cláusulas contractuales y la responsabilidad de ambas demandadas para el pago del precio dejado de cancelar a la actora por motivo de la compraventa de banano con base en un precio mínimo establecido por Decreto.- Con base en ese objeto de debate, sobre el cuál se ha dado traslado de la demanda, es que se procede analizar la existencia de la responsabilidad solidaria por parte de la codemandada Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica Sociedad Anónima.- Conforme al principio de que el juez conoce del derecho, y con base en lo pedido se determina el derecho a aplicar, considera este Tribunal se está en presencia de un contrato realidad suscrito por Standard Fruit Company con la actora Agromarina Oro Verde S.A., aunque en el contrato firmado por las partes se indique que la participación de Standard lo es para la ejecución del contrato entre Operaciones Tropicales y la actora. Conforme a la prueba traída a los autos, se determina tal contrato de ejecución no es más que la creación de una apariencia jurídica o ficción jurídica para ocultar la participación real y directa de la empresa Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica S.A., -en adelante Standard- en la compraventa de banano a la actora. Para llegar a tal conclusión se tienen los siguientes indicios claros, precisos y concordantes: a) Existía una participación directa de Standard en la redacción y formulación de los contratos escritos entre Operaciones Tropicales S.A. y la sociedad actora. Así se evidencia del documento visible a folio 881 en el que se remite información solicitada por Standard Fruit Company, para la firma del contrato de compraventa de banano de ella con Agromarina Oroverde S.A.; y se le informa sobre las áreas cultivadas de banano. Ver documento fechado 5 de marzo de 1996 a folio 881. b) Standard era quien compraba y pagaba la fruta a la actora, en forma directa y haciendo pago de sus propias cuentas bancarias, así se desprende de la declaración de [Nombre4] a folio 1154 al responder a la pregunta dieciocho, cuando manifiesta que los cheques de liquidación de compra fruta eran emitidos con cheques de las cuentas de Standard. c) La administración y liquidación de la fruta estaba a cargo de Standard quien recibía la fruta y pagaba el precio, así se desprende de la declaración de [Nombre4] , igualmente de la documentación que rola a folios 190 a 751, documentos que hacen referencia a la liquidación por compra de fruta que hiciera la Standard a Agromarina Oro Verde S.A. d) Era Standard, a través de su representante, quien definía las modificaciones de los precios y bonificaciones a pagar a la actora y lo hacía saber así a ésta, así como la cantidad de fruta a comprar. Ello se demuestra con los comunicados de folios 129, 140, 157, 158-159, documentos suscritos por [Nombre5] a folio 929-931, fechados 18 de diciembre de 1996 y 28 de enero de 1997 folio 931, así como el suscrito por dicho gerente en fecha 27 de mayo de 1997 visible a folio 933 e) La empresa Standard hacía requerimientos a los productores y a la actora para el cumplimiento del sistema de manejo ambiental ISO 14001, y de seguridad alimenticia, les brindaba además capacitación e instrucciones en tal sentido; así se desprende del comunicado visible a folio 131, 145. 147, 163-169-, 182, programa ambiental para finca Agromarina Oro Verde visible a folios 951 a 954, documento de folio 955 fechado 22 de octubre de 1998, y documento de folio 956 y 957 fechados 6 de abril y 12 de octubre ambos de 1999 respectivamente f) “Dole” es marca utilizada por Standard Fruit Company según se desprende de la papelería en el giro de dicha empresa, por lo que en protección de dicha marca se giraban instrucciones de cumplimiento de normas de calidad, así como el empaque utilizado de la fruta vendida por la actora era bajo esa misma marca. Así se desprende de los comunicados de folios 142, documento de folio 184 donde consta entrega de material con dicho logotipo dirigido al Gerente General de la Standard, y documento fechado 22 de noviembre de 1996 visible a folio 937, 938, memo fechado 25 de febrero de 1997 y visible a folio 939, 940, 942, 944-946.- g) El tipo de agroquímicos en las plantaciones de banano debía ser autorizado por la Standard, así se desprende de gestión realizada por la actora a dicha compañía en fecha 17 de octubre de 1997, según comunicado de fax visible a folio 173, y documento de folio 176, comunicado fechado julio 1997 visible a folio 948 y documento a folio 950 h) La empresa Standard también otorgaba financiamiento a la actora como productora, como parte de los beneficios recíprocos de compra venta de fruta, sí tenemos el documento de aprobación de financiamiento a favor de la productora visible a folios 174-175. i) Las especificaciones o características de la fruta eran definidas por Standard, así se observa según comunicado a Agromarina Oro Verde en memo remitido vía fax en fecha 24 de marzo de 1997 visible a folio 186, así como documento de folio 932.- Todos los anteriores hechos, son claros en indicar la participación de la codemandada Standard como parte directa en la contratación, y no como una simple empresa contratada para su ejecución, pues la toma de decisiones en la práctica del contrato determinan su participación real como parte principal en el referido contrato de compraventa de banano. La consensualidad en este sentido está presente entre la actora y las codemandadas, una en forma escrita con Operaciones Tropicales S.A., y la otra en forma de contrato realidad con relación a la codemandada Standard. Desconocer este contrato realidad es amparar un abuso del derecho sancionado en el artículo 22 del Código Civil. Así mismo, también es de aplicación lo dispuesto en el artículo 20 ibídem, que dice: “Los actos realizados al amparo del texto de una norma, que persigan un resultado prohibido por el ordenamiento jurídico, o contrario a él, se considerarán ejecutados en fraude de la ley y, no impedirán la debida aplicación de la norma que se hubiere tratado de eludir.” En forma analógica en aplicación de este artículo, se tiene que bajo la apariencia de un contrato de ejecución, la Standard Fruit Company crea una ficción jurídica para ocultar su participación directa y real en el contrato de compra venta de banano, el cual tiene su consensualidad en la forma de hacerse efectivo el mismo basado en una realidad y no en la ficción jurídica cuya nomenclatura le dieron las partes, siendo la forma en que se desarrolla el mismo que permite determinar la realidad de dicho contrato en el que tiene participación solidaria en cuanto su responsabilidad la codemandada Standard Fruit Co. Aunado a lo anterior se tiene lo dispuesto en el artículo 21 ibídem, en cuanto a que dispone “los derechos deberán ejercitarse conforme con las exigencias de la buena fe”. Por lo expuesto, deberá declararse también la responsabilidad de la codemandada Standard Fruit Company al pago de los rubros establecidos en el fallo recurrido en contra de Operaciones Tropicales Sociedad Anónima.- “