Acceptance Of Goods

54 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Bonebrake v. COX
  499 F.2d 951· 8th Cir.· 1974-07-02 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Uniform Commercial Code was misconstrued regarding notice requirements for breach of warranty and the applicability of the Code to mixed goods and services contracts. The court also found that the buyers' actions constituted anticipatory repudiation by the
• McDonald v. Ola Sanders
  103 Fla. 93· Fla.· 1931-10-14 ·cited 38×
  McDonald and Burgman sued Sanders and Fraleigh on seven promissory notes totaling $2,625 for a used steam shovel sold with an alleged $1,500 in new parts and a warranty of good working condition. The jury found the shovel failed to meet the express warranty and lacked the promise
• VAN Dorn Co. v. Future Chem. & OIL Corp.
  753 F.2d 565· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-23 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the piercing of the corporate veil to hold Sovereign of Illinois liable for Future's debts, finding sufficient evidence of intermingling and injustice under Illinois law. It also affirmed the disallowance of art charges and the denial of recovery for over-shipp
• Harbor v. Blair Burwell
  56 Fla. 217· Fla.· 1908-06-01 ·cited 25×
  A written contract requiring written authorization from a chief engineer for extra work may be waived by the parties through subsequent oral agreement and course of dealing, provided there is sufficient consideration and evidence of waiver. However, when extra work is claimed, th
• Constr. Aggregates Corp. v. Hewitt-Robins
  404 F.2d 505· 7th Cir.· 1968-12-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a jury could find that the defendant's modified acceptance letter constituted a counter-offer, which the plaintiff accepted by its subsequent conduct, thereby limiting warranties and precluding claims for breach of implied warranties.
• Am. Elastics, Inc. v. United States
  187 F.2d 109· 2d Cir.· 1951-02-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the 'as is' clauses in both contracts precluded recovery for breach of warranty or mutual mistake, and that nominal damages are not recoverable against the United States.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. N. Am. Steel Corp.
  335 So. 2d 18· Fla. 2d DCA· 1976-07-07 ·cited 20×
  United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G), as surety on a performance bond, appealed a judgment requiring it to pay NASCO for fabricated steel piping. The court reversed, holding that a buyer's failure to reject goods within 30 days does not preclude it from claiming br
• Eric C. Rajala in Bankr. for Gen. Poly Corp. v. Allied Corp.
  919 F.2d 610· 10th Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a fiduciary relationship between the parties because there was no conscious assumption of fiduciary duties by the defendant.
• Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Galaxis USA, Ltd.
  222 F. Supp. 2d 1315· M.D. Fla.· 2002-04-17 ·cited 14×
  Lockheed Martin sued galaxis USA for breach of a production contract to manufacture Space Scanners, and also sued three defendants (Bavaria-Hanseatic Holding GMBH, galaxis Vertriebsgesellschaft MBH, and Winfried Klimek) as alleged guarantors of galaxis USA's payment obligations.
• Webb v. Carnival Corp.
  321 F.R.D. 420· S.D. Fla.· 2017-07-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while some of the expert's testimony regarding industry standards is admissible, opinions containing legal conclusions or lacking a reliable methodology are excluded.
• L. Albert & SON v. Armstrong Rubber Co.
  178 F.2d 182· 2d Cir.· 1949-11-29 ·cited 10×
  The seller's late delivery of the second two machines constituted a breach, justifying the buyer's rejection of all four. The buyer's use of a motor after rejection did not constitute acceptance, but the seller is entitled to its value plus interest. The buyer can recover relianc
• Shreve Land Co., Inc. v. J & D Fin. Corp.
  421 So. 2d 722· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-09 ·cited 9×
  An assignee takes a contract subject to the assignor's burdens, including setoffs for breach of contract, even if the assignee seeks to enforce payment for a partial shipment.
• The Seminole Nation of Okla. v. The United States
  498 F.2d 1368· Ct. Cl.· 1974-06-19 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Indian Claims Commission correctly vacated its prior favorable ruling and dismissed the appellant's petition, as no vested property right in mineral royalties was created in the Seminole Nation by the 1898 Agreement.
• Commercial Union Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Padrick Chevrolet Co., Inc.
  196 So. 2d 235· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-03-07 ·cited 9×
  Commercial Union Insurance Company appealed a judgment in favor of Padrick Chevrolet Company for loss of a Pontiac automobile destroyed by fire. The court affirmed, holding that Padrick had an insurable interest in the Pontiac through a valid oral contract with the vehicle's owne
• Hawke Distrib., Inc. v. Nuevo SOL P'rs, Inc.
  689 So. 2d 1202· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-03-12 ·cited 8×
  Appellant's resale of video disc players constituted acceptance under Florida's UCC, obligating payment at the contract rate despite alleged nonconformity.
• Micromedia v. Automated Broadcast Controls
  799 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the appellant and that the statute of frauds barred recovery on the System 80 contract, but remanded for a new trial on damages for the interim system, allowing ABC to recover the purchase price.
• Fred Hale Mach., Inc. v. Laurel Hill Lumber Co., Inc.
  483 F.2d 58· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a Mississippi statute prohibiting foreign corporations not qualified to do business in the state from suing did not bar the suit because the transaction involved interstate commerce. It also held that a jury instruction regarding acceptance and warranty breach
• First Am. Farms, Inc. v. Marden Mfg. Co.
  255 So. 2d 536· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-12-09 ·cited 6×
  First American Farms appeals a jury verdict awarding Marden Manufacturing $49,440 for the purchase price of a bush cutter machine. The appellate court reverses, finding the evidence insufficient to support a sale as the machine was delivered for demonstration purposes only and th
• Rode & Brand v. Kamm Games, Inc.
  181 F.2d 584· 2d Cir.· 1950-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants breached the contract by refusing to accept and pay for the goods, as the goods complied with the contract's intended specifications and the defendants failed to timely assert any noncompliance.
• United States v. 7 Barrels
  141 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1944-03-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the seven barrels of eggs, which failed inspection and were never accepted or shipped, did not constitute a transaction in interstate commerce and thus were not subject to condemnation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
• Jdi Holdings, LLC v. Jet Mgmt., Inc.
  732 F. Supp. 2d 1205· N.D. Fla.· 2010-08-06 ·cited 5×
  The court found that the seller and broker did not conspire to conceal defects, and the buyer's misunderstanding of the contract terms, rather than fraudulent concealment, led to the dispute.
• Williams v. LM Gen. Ins. Co.
  129 La. 983· M.D. Fla.· 2019-07-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amount in controversy was facially apparent from the complaint, satisfying the jurisdictional requirement for removal, and thus denied the motion to remand.
• United States for the Use & Benefit of Control Sys., Inc. v. Arundel Corp.
  826 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-19 ·cited 4×
  Lar's failure to notify the seller of late delivery after accepting the goods bars any remedy for breach of contract under the Uniform Commercial Code.
• United States for the Use of Ascher Corp. v. Bradley-Dodson Co.
  281 F.2d 676· 8th Cir.· 1960-08-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant accepted and used the wire delivered, despite its non-conformity with a government contract, and therefore was liable for the contract price.
• SAX Enters., Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc.
  92 So. 2d 421· Fla.· 1957-01-30 ·cited 4×
  Sax Enterprises sued David and Dash, Inc. on quantum meruit for the full contract price of bedspreads that did not meet specifications. The trial court held that the buyer's temporary use and acceptance of the nonconforming bedspreads estopped it from denying payment obligation.
• C. W. Anderson Hosiery Co. v. Dixie Knitting Mills, Inc.
  204 F.2d 503· 4th Cir.· 1953-05-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence presented required submission to the jury on the issue of whether the buyer waived defects in the merchandise and accepted it, and whether a supplemental agreement was valid.
• United States v. LUX Laundry Co., Inc.
  118 F.2d 848· 7th Cir.· 1941-03-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendants' delayed request for stoker removal constituted acceptance, and their attempted rescission was too late.
• The Mortg. Holding Corp. v. Summy
  97 Fla. 403· Fla.· 1929-03-30 ·cited 4×
  The Mortgage Holding Corporation sold stock to the Summys in exchange for a note, which it later assigned to Ernest Berger. The Summys sought rescission based on alleged fraud and statutory violations regarding the sale of investment company securities. The Florida Supreme Court
• Standard Growers Exch. v. Howard
  82 Fla. 97· Fla.· 1921-07-05 ·cited 4×
  Standard Growers Exchange appeals a jury verdict awarding the Howards damages for breach of a tomato supply contract. The court affirmed the judgment but found the verdict excessive, conditioning affirmance on the plaintiff's agreement to reduce the judgment by remittitur.
• Validsa, Inc. v. Pdvsa Servs. Inc.
  632 F. Supp. 2d 1219· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Defendants breached contracts by failing to pay for accepted goods and anticipatorily repudiated other contracts by failing to provide adequate assurances of performance.
• Joseph T. Ryerson & Sons, Inc. v. Commodity Eng'g Co.
  689 F.2d 478· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a buyer's rejection of goods, even if disputed, revests title in the seller, entitling the seller to the proceeds of a subsequent sale.
• A. B. G. Instrument & Eng'g, Inc. v. The United States
  593 F.2d 394· Ct. Cl.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the ASBCA erred in granting an equitable adjustment for the Government's imposition of a 100 percent inspection requirement, but was correct in upholding the default termination based on the contractor's failure to make satisfactory progress.
• Max Bauer Meat Packer, Inc. v. The United States
  458 F.2d 88· Ct. Cl.· 1972-04-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board's decision was legally correct, affirming partial recovery for the plaintiff due to the Government's unreasonable delay in rejecting a portion of the goods, but denying recovery for another portion based on plaintiff's agreement to the inspection pla
• Marcoux v. Davis
  230 So. 2d 485· Fla. 3d DCA· 1970-01-13 ·cited 2×
  Appellant Marcoux, a co-owner of a boat mold, appeals a judgment awarding the appellee Davis compensatory damages for injury to the mold while in Marcoux's possession and unjust enrichment damages. The appellate court reversed, holding that Davis accepted the mold in its then-exi
• Moscahlades Bros., Inc. v. Mallars & Co.
  263 F.2d 631· 7th Cir.· 1959-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's act of selling two cases of cheese after rejecting the entire shipment, without notice to the seller for four months, was inconsistent with the seller's ownership and constituted acceptance of the entire indivisible shipment.
• John I. Haas, Inc. v. Wellman
  186 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1951-01-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a custom in the hop trade regarding 'weighing in' after inspection constituted acceptance, and that a customary price adjustment for leaf and stem content was applicable even if not explicitly in the contract.
• Cottondale State Bank v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co.
  61 Fla. 143· Fla.· 1911-01-01 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against Cottondale State Bank in a contract action brought by Burroughs Adding Machine Company, finding that the trial court improperly excluded evidence supporting the bank's affirmative defenses regarding authorization and the machi
• Twin Rivers Eng'g, Inc. v. Pacer USA, LLC
  257 So. 3d 140· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-10-24 ·cited 1×
  Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the seller's standard terms and conditions were attached to and received with the quote, and whether the buyer's rejection of the goods was timely under the UCC.
• Coastal & Native Plant Specialties, Inc. v. Engineered Textile Prods., Inc.
  139 F. Supp. 2d 1326· N.D. Fla.· 2001-03-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that additional terms in a seller's invoice, which were conditional upon buyer's assent, do not become part of a contract formed by conduct under UCC § 2-207(3) unless expressly agreed to.
• Conners v. Gaskins
  82 Fla. 389· Fla.· 1921-11-23 ·cited 1×
  Gaskins sued Conners for breach of a verbal contract to sell sugar cane stalks for planting at 1.5 cents per stalk. Conners cut and removed only 59,000 of 100,000 stalks and refused payment. The trial court struck certain defensive pleas and entered judgment for Gaskins; Conners
• Demens v. LeMoyne
  26 Fla. 323· Fla.· 1890-06-01 ·cited 1×
  P.A. Demens appealed a jury verdict for LeMoyne in a goods sale dispute, arguing the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that delivery of bricks implied acceptance by the buyer. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a buyer has the right to inspect and reject n
• HCI Chems. (USA), Inc. v. Henkel KGaA
  966 F.2d 1018· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-27
  The court held that while HCI did not effectively reject the nonconforming goods, it is entitled to damages under an acceptance theory for breach of warranty.
• A/S Dampskibsselskabet Torm v. Beaumont OIL Ltd.
  927 F.2d 713· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-11
  A secured creditor is not liable for shipping charges merely by exercising dominion and control over collateral, absent acceptance of goods or an agreement to pay.
• Mitsui & Co. (USA) Inc. v. Hudson Tank Terminals Corp.
  790 F.2d 226· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-07
  U.C.C. § 2-722 allows a right of action for injury to goods to either the buyer or seller, but not separate recoveries for the same loss, especially when the seller has already settled with the bailee up to the contractually limited liability.
• Prewitt v. Numismatic Funding Corp.
  745 F.2d 1175· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-05
  The court held that under a sale on approval, the risk of loss remains with the seller until acceptance, and the buyer's return of goods via mail within the agreed time constitutes seasonable notification.
• Eccher v. Small Bus. Admin.
  643 F.2d 1388· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-16
  The SBA had a duty to provide proof of ownership reasonably sufficient for licensing, and its unreasonable demand for an overbroad security agreement constituted a breach of contract, entitling the buyer to damages.
• Adam Metal Supply, Inc. v. Electrodex, Inc.
  386 So. 2d 1316· Fla. 2d DCA· 1980-09-03
  A Florida appellate court reversed a judgment denying recovery in a goods sale dispute involving defective aluminum sheeting. The court applied Uniform Commercial Code provisions to determine that while the buyer properly rejected nonconforming goods, its damages were limited to
• Adrien Miron and Raymond Miron v. Yonkers Raceway, Inc.
  400 F.2d 112· 2d Cir.· 1968-08-12
  The court held that the buyer accepted the horse by failing to reject it within a reasonable time after delivery, thus bearing the burden of proving a breach of warranty, which he failed to do. The court also held the auctioneer breached its contract by delivering the horse befor
• Brunswick Corp. v. Steel Warehouse Co., Inc.
  309 F.2d 297· 7th Cir.· 1962-10-10
  The court held that the defendant accepted the entire lot of steel sheets, including those not picked up, due to its resale of a substantial portion, and thus the seller was entitled to the contract price less resale proceeds and payments made.
• Ryan Ready Mixed Concrete Corp. v. Franki Found. Co.
  229 F.2d 289· 2d Cir.· 1956-01-12
  The court held that the buyer accepted the concrete-mix, thus title passed, and the buyer failed to prove breach of warranty or provide notice.