Commercial Reasonableness

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

• COX v. CSX Intermodal, Inc.
  732 So. 2d 1092· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-01-13 ·cited 161×
  Truck owners Cox and Bartolozzi appealed summary judgment dismissing their breach of contract and tortious interference claims against CSX Intermodal and employee Helen Venson. The court affirmed dismissal of the tortious interference claim but reversed summary judgment on the br
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer
  781 F.2d 1260· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-16 ·cited 58×
  The sale of the property moots the appeal of the foreclosure decree because the appellants failed to obtain a stay of enforcement. Margaret Meyer's appeal of the judgment on the guaranty is not moot, but her arguments regarding the sufficiency of the FDIC's affidavit were waived
• Fernandez v. Vazquez
  397 So. 2d 1171· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-04-28 ·cited 54×
  This case establishes that in Florida, a lessor cannot arbitrarily refuse consent to an assignment of a commercial lease even when the lease requires written consent. The court holds that lessors must exercise consent decisions in good faith and according to commercial reasonable
• Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Chicago
  877 F.2d 1333· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-19 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the Kimmels lacked standing for RICO and Bank Holding Company Act claims, and that Mid-State failed to allege valid fraud for a RICO claim.
• Campbell Leasing, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  901 F.2d 1244· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-24 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and federal holder in due course doctrine bar certain defenses and claims against the FDIC and NCNB, but appellants may pursue specific tort and contract claims against the FDIC as receiver.
• Columbia Nitrogen Corp. v. Royster Co.
  451 F.2d 3· 4th Cir.· 1971-10-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that evidence of trade usage and course of dealing should have been admitted to explain or supplement the contract terms, entitling Columbia to a new trial on the contract claim, but affirmed the judgment on the antitrust issues.
• TCP Indus., Inc. v. Uniroyal, Inc.
  661 F.2d 542· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-29 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the jury's findings regarding contract modification and the reasonableness of prices under the 1974 contract were supported by sufficient evidence, and that certain procedural errors did not warrant reversal.
• Motorola Commc'ns & Elecs., Inc. v. Nat'l Patient Aids, Inc.
  427 So. 2d 1042· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-03-02 ·cited 38×
  Motorola appeals a final judgment awarding damages to guarantors of a debt for communications equipment, despite having won summary judgment on liability. The court reverses and remands due to fundamental procedural defects: the case was tried on issues not raised in the pleading
• United States v. Terrey
  554 F.2d 685· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the jury should have been allowed to decide whether the SBA's sale of collateral was commercially reasonable, as this is a question of fact.
• Fenstermacher v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank & Carson Inv. Co.
  493 F.2d 333· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the appellant waived his right to a jury trial and any objections to the consolidation of hearings, and that the district court did not err in its findings regarding securities law violations or breach of contract.
• Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.
  841 F.2d 918· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-04 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the security agreement, not the financing statement, defined the extent of the security interest, and that various claims and counterclaims were either without merit, waived, or barred by law.
• United States v. UNUM, Inc.
  658 F.2d 300· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the defendants, as makers of the note, could not assert the unjustifiable impairment of collateral defense under UCC § 3-606, and that the commercial reasonableness defense under UCC § 9-504 was waived by failure to plead it timely.
• Hepworth v. The Orlando Bank & Tr. Co.
  323 So. 2d 41· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-11-14 ·cited 32×
  A guarantor of a promissory note secured by collateral is a 'debtor' under the Uniform Commercial Code and is entitled to reasonable notification prior to the disposition of the collateral, and failure to provide such notice precludes a deficiency judgment.
• United States v. Willis
  593 F.2d 247· 6th Cir.· 1979-01-26 ·cited 31×
  The court held that unconditional guarantors can assert the defense of commercial unreasonableness in the disposition of collateral, and that the SBA failed to prove its collateral disposition was commercially reasonable.
• United States v. Baus
  834 F.2d 1114· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the guarantors' Rule 60(b)(6) motion as untimely, finding their delay was justified by the government's conduct and assurances.
• United States v. Conrad Publ'g Co.
  589 F.2d 949· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge held that the sale of collateral was commercially reasonable under U.C.C. § 9-504(3), and the District Court's contrary finding was clearly erroneous.
• Speedway Superamerica, LLC v. Tropic Enters., Inc.
  966 So. 2d 1· Fla. 2d DCA· 2007-04-20 ·cited 28×
  Speedway SuperAmerica sought to assign its commercial lease to Sunoco, but landlord Tropic Enterprises refused consent. The trial court granted summary judgment for Tropic based on an unfettered right to withhold consent under the lease provision. The appellate court reversed, ho
• Geldermann & Co., Inc. v. Lane Processing, Inc.
  527 F.2d 571· 8th Cir.· 1975-12-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the liquidation provision in the commodities signature card and Rule 209 of the Chicago Board of Trade were not unconscionable, and thus enforceable.
• Melara v. Kennedy
  541 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1976-08-02 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a warehouseman's extra-judicial sale of stored goods to enforce a lien under California Commercial Code § 7210 does not constitute state action, and therefore does not violate the owner's due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• E.H. Ashley & Co., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Servs.
  907 F.2d 1274· 1st Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 26×
  A subrogated insurer is bound by a limitation of liability clause in its insured's contract with a service provider, and such clauses in burglar alarm contracts are generally not unconscionable.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. CX Processing Labs., Inc.
  523 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1975-08-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that CX failed to present sufficient evidence for its antitrust claims and that the trial court did not err in admitting parol evidence or in its jury instructions and rulings on freight charges and interest.
• Neal-Cooper Grain Co. v. Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co.
  508 F.2d 283· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-17 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a contract was formed despite the seller's internal procedures and that the buyer's shipping instructions did not constitute anticipatory repudiation.
• Warren v. Ford Motor Credit Co. & Larry Diefenderfer
  693 F.2d 1373· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the repossession and sale of the automobile constituted conversion because the contract was not in default and the plaintiffs, as owners, were not given proper notice of the sale. The punitive damages award was excessive and conditionally remitted.
• Bondurant v. Beard Equip. Co.
  345 So. 2d 806· Fla. 1st DCA· 1977-03-03 ·cited 22×
  H.P. Bondurant purchased a used front-end loader from Beard Equipment under a security agreement and later refused to accept it after repairs. Beard sold the loader at a lower price and sued for the deficiency. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that oral notice of intent t
• Bethina Washington v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Miami
  332 So. 2d 644· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-05-25 ·cited 22×
  A co-signer of an installment sales contract appeals a deficiency judgment for an unpaid automobile balance. The court reverses, holding that a secured creditor must provide notice of repossession sale to the debtor or co-signer before obtaining a deficiency judgment, even though
• The Barnett Bank OF Tallahassee v. Campbell
  402 So. 2d 12· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-06-17 ·cited 21×
  Barnett Bank sought a deficiency judgment against Campbell, a guarantor of a promissory note secured by business equipment and motor vehicles, after the collateral was sold following the debtor corporation's bankruptcy. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the deficienc
• Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A.
  701 F.3d 896· 11th Cir.· 2012-11-27 ·cited 20×
  Roger Chavez, a Venezuelan customer of Mercantil Commercebank, sued to recover $329,500 fraudulently transferred from his account to the Dominican Republic. The bank invoked a safe-harbor defense under Florida's UCC Article 4A (Fla. Stat. § 670.202(2)), claiming that because the
• United States v. NEW Mexico Landscaping, Inc.
  785 F.2d 843· 10th Cir.· 1986-02-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the guarantors waived the defense of commercial unreasonableness and that their due process rights were not violated by lack of notice regarding the foreclosure sale.
• United States v. Lattauzio
  748 F.2d 559· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 20×
  Guarantors waived the defense that the collateral was not sold in a commercially reasonable manner by signing an unconditional guaranty agreement.
• Perini Corp. & Brown Bros. v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Habersham Cnty.
  553 F.2d 398· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the loss from forged checks with defective indorsements must be viewed as a forged check loss, not a forged indorsement loss, and affirmed the lower court's action.
• First Nat'l Park Bank v. Snellen M. Johnson and Ven Savage
  553 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that guarantors waived their right to notice of collateral sale by signing an unconditional guaranty agreement, and that the bank's claim for deficiency was not barred.
• United States v. Whitehouse Plastics
  501 F.2d 692· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-27 ·cited 20×
  Failure to provide reasonable notice of a collateral sale does not automatically bar a deficiency judgment, but rather shifts the burden to the secured party to prove the collateral's fair market value did not exceed the sale proceeds.
• Brunswick Corp. v. J & P, Inc.
  424 F.2d 100· 10th Cir.· 1970-03-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the doctrine of conversion, custodia legis does not apply to a conditional vendor who sells replevined goods before judgment, especially under the Uniform Commercial Code.
• S. Developers & Earthmoving, Inc. v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp.
  56 So. 3d 56· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-02-23 ·cited 18×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment for a deficiency judgment, holding that the creditor failed to prove the commercial reasonableness of the sale of repossessed equipment. The court found that the creditor did not provide sufficient evidence of the s
• Patty Precision Prods. Co. v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co.
  846 F.2d 1247· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 18×
  A manufacturer's warranty disclaimer is ineffective against a subsequent buyer if the manufacturer had extensive dealings with that buyer and failed to communicate the disclaimer.
• Landmark First Nat'l Bank of Fort Lauderdale v. Gepetto's Tale O' THE Whale OF Fort Lauderdale, Inc.
  498 So. 2d 920· Fla.· 1986-12-04 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether a secured creditor's failure to provide statutory notice of a collateral sale defeats the right to a deficiency judgment. The Court held that while notice is integral to determining whether a sale is commercially reasonable, failure to
• The Fla. First Nat'l Bank AT Pensacola v. Martin
  449 So. 2d 861· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-03-27 ·cited 18×
  A bank appealed a summary judgment denying it a deficiency judgment after repossessing and selling a secured boat for substantially less than its value. The court affirmed, holding that the bank's failure to dispose of the collateral in a commercially reasonable manner precluded
• Nanakuli Paving & Rock Co. v. Shell OIL Co., Inc.
  664 F.2d 772· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-21 ·cited 17×
• United States v. Lair
  854 F.2d 233· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Lairs' unconditional personal guaranty made them liable for the SBA loan, as they failed to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding willful SBA misconduct, commercial unreasonableness of collateral disposition, or estoppel.
• Wainwright Bank & Tr. Co. v. Railroadmens Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Indianapolis
  806 F.2d 146· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the SBA's rejection of a private offer and its conduct of a public sale were commercially reasonable, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Bornstein v. Somerson
  341 So. 2d 1043· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-01-26 ·cited 16×
  In a mortgage foreclosure action on a citrus grove, the court held that a fruit sales agreement with open terms (price, harvesting dates, delivery charges) constituted a binding contract that constructively severed the 1974-75 citrus crop from the mortgaged realty, removing crop
• LEE Cnty. Bank v. Errol B. Winson
  444 So. 2d 459· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-12-30 ·cited 14×
  Lee County Bank appeals a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages in a conversion action arising from the bank's repossession and sale of Winson's automobile. The court reversed the punitive damages award and remanded the compensatory damages for recalculation usi
• United States v. Jones
  707 F.2d 1334· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 14×
  Federal law, specifically SBA regulations, pre-empts state law and prevents a private guarantor from claiming pro rata contribution from the SBA, as the SBA is explicitly not a co-guarantor.
• McCUNE v. F. Alioto Fish Co.
  597 F.2d 1244· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a settlement agreement mooted the plaintiff's claim against the shipowner, and that the plaintiff's claim against the manufacturer was barred by laches due to inexcusable delay and prejudice. The court also held that the shipowner's indemnity claim against the
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  61 F. Supp. 2d 1308· S.D. Fla.· 1999-07-06 ·cited 13×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Exxon breached its contractual obligation of good faith by allegedly double-charging dealers for credit card processing fees, thus denying Exxon's motion for summary judgment.
• Boucher v. First Cmty. Bank OF Orange City
  626 So. 2d 979· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-10-15 ·cited 13×
  Roland and Monique Boucher appealed summary judgments against them in a deficiency judgment action brought by First Community Bank after repossession of a mobile home they purchased through Pathfinder Services. The court affirmed the judgment against First Community Bank but vaca
• Fotomat Corp. OF Fla. v. Chanda
  464 So. 2d 626· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-02-28 ·cited 13×
  Fotomat Corporation appeals from a judgment awarding Dr. Chanda $9,500 in damages for lost film he delivered for processing. The court reverses, holding that Fotomat's limitation of liability clause was not unconscionable because it was commercially reasonable, clearly communicat
• City Nat'l Bank OF Fort Smith v. Unique Structures, Inc.
  929 F.2d 1308· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in ruling that notices of sale of collateral were reasonable as a matter of law and that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence.
• In re Vitreous Steel Prods. Co.
  911 F.2d 1223· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the bankruptcy court properly lifted the automatic stay, the determination of that motion did not preclude the prosecution of the adversary complaint. The court also reversed the dismissal of NIPSCO's claim for equitable subordination.
• Coast-To-Coast Stores, Inc. v. Womack-Bowers, Inc.
  818 F.2d 1398· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding prejudicial statements, evidence exclusion, denial of a new trial, or dismissal of the common law fraud claim.