Uniform Commercial Code Article 2

44 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Chatlos Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Cash Register Corp. (NCR Corporation). Appeal of Chatlos Sys., Inc.
  635 F.2d 1081· 3d Cir.· 1980-11-26 ·cited 42×
  A contractual exclusion of consequential damages is enforceable unless unconscionable, even if a limited remedy fails of its essential purpose, and the measure of damages for breach of warranty should consider market value.
• United States v. The City OF Twin Falls
  806 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised ancillary and pendent jurisdiction over the City's third-party claims and did not err in ruling as a matter of law that Envirotech's pre-bid submittal did not modify the contract, that the contract was for the sale of good
• K & M Joint Venture v. Smith Int'l, Inc.
  669 F.2d 1106· 6th Cir.· 1982-02-03 ·cited 26×
  The appellate court should defer to the district court's findings on notice if the correct legal standard was applied and the finding is supported by substantial evidence, even if the appellate court would have reached a different conclusion.
• LeSUEUR Creamery, Inc. v. Haskon, Inc.
  660 F.2d 342· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a jury's negligence verdict can be sustained even with other claims, and that damages must be reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of contributory negligence as required by statute.
• Cavic v. Pioneer Astro Indus., Inc.
  825 F.2d 1421· 10th Cir.· 1987-04-16 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of commissions and interest, finding that the "purchase agreements" were long-term requirements contracts and that Cavic, as an independent contractor, was not entitled to statutory penalties or fees.
• Hahn v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  625 F.2d 1095· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove a sale of the hoist from the manufacturer to the buyer, a necessary predicate for a breach of warranty claim under the UCC. The court also predicted that Pennsylvania law would apply the two-year personal injury s
• Council Bros., Inc. v. RAY Burner Co.
  473 F.2d 400· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-05 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while a warranty's exclusion of consequential damages is valid, a buyer may still recover incidental damages under the Uniform Commercial Code, even if not explicitly listed in the warranty.
• Zayre Corp. v. S.M. & R. Co., Inc.
  882 F.2d 1145· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that SM & R waived its evidentiary objections by failing to raise them in the district court and that the Sherman letters did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds for a contract for the sale of goods.
• Corbin v. Coleco Indus., Inc.
  748 F.2d 411· 7th Cir.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Indiana law requires privity for breach of implied warranty claims under the UCC, and that a plaintiff's knowledge of a danger does not automatically preclude a finding that a warning was required or that its absence was a proximate cause of injury. The court
• Pulte Home Corp., Inc. v. Ply Gem Indus., Inc.
  804 F. Supp. 1471· M.D. Fla.· 1992-09-22 ·cited 15×
  The court found that factual disputes remained, precluding summary judgment on most issues, but denied summary judgment on punitive damages against the defendants. The court also found that Pulte had standing to sue.
• In re Sitkin Smelting AND Refining v. Harrison
  639 F.2d 1213· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 12×
  The transaction was a contract for sale, not a bailment, making C.I.T.'s perfected security interest superior to Kodak's unperfected interest.
• York-Shipley, Inc. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co.
  474 F.2d 8· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-23 ·cited 12×
  A party shipping goods C.I.F. port of destination lacks an insurable interest in the goods once they are delivered to the carrier, and therefore lacks standing to sue on an insurance policy.
• Amoco Pipeline Co. v. Admiral Crude OIL Corp.
  490 F.2d 114· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The New Mexico district court correctly exercised jurisdiction and denied the stay, as the oil in question was not in the debtor's possession or property when the bankruptcy stay order was issued.
• Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. of Tenn. v. Ger-Beck Mach. Co., Inc.
  806 F.2d 1207· 3d Cir.· 1986-12-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the sales aspects of a mixed sale and security transaction are governed by Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code, allowing for revocation of acceptance even when the seller is a finance company.
• Cosden OIL & Chem. Co. v. Aktiengesellschaft
  736 F.2d 1064· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that for an anticipatory repudiation where the buyer does not cover, damages are measured at a commercially reasonable time after the seller's repudiation, not when the buyer learns of it or at the time of performance.
• Vigano v. Wylain, Inc.
  633 F.2d 522· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that distributorship agreements are not covered by the UCC Statute of Frauds and that claims for lost future profits are too speculative to be recoverable.
• Graphic Sales, Inc. v. Sperry Univac Division
  824 F.2d 576· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Sperry did not misrepresent its services, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
• Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hayden Harper, Jr.
  671 F.2d 1117· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 6×
  A buyer's revocation of acceptance is justifiable when goods have a nonconformity that substantially impairs their value, even if the nonconformity stems from seller's repair failures rather than solely manufacturing defects.
• Chatlos Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Cash Register Corp. Appeal of NCR Corp.
  670 F.2d 1304· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-15 ·cited 6×
  The district court erred in its calculation of damages for breach of warranty by relying on speculative expert testimony regarding the fair market value of a hypothetical computer system rather than the value of the goods as warranted. The contract price should serve as prima fac
• Varner v. B. L. Lanier Fruit Co., Inc.
  370 So. 2d 61· Fla. 2d DCA· 1979-04-20 ·cited 6×
  A liquidated damages clause is enforceable only if the amount is reasonable in light of the anticipated or actual harm, and an unreasonably small amount may be deemed unconscionable or a limited remedy may fail its essential purpose.
• Stewart-Decatur Sec. Sys., Inc. v. VON Weise Gear Co.
  517 F.2d 1136· 8th Cir.· 1975-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that when parties agree to a prototype, the prototype's specifications may displace inconsistent specifications in a subsequent written purchase order, especially when the prototype was tested and approved.
• In re Colacci's OF Am. v. Gifford
  490 F.2d 1118· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the seller's repossession of equipment was a preferential transfer under the Bankruptcy Act, not a valid cancellation of the sale.
• Foster v. Colo. Radio Corp.
  381 F.2d 222· 10th Cir.· 1967-07-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a party cannot claim nonperformance of a condition as a defense if their own inaction caused the nonperformance, and that the Uniform Commercial Code applies to the sale of goods even if part of a larger transaction.
• R.E. Davis Chem. Corp. v. Diasonics, Inc.
  826 F.2d 678· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 4×
  A lost volume seller can recover lost profits under UCC § 2-708(2), and the 'due credit' language does not preclude this. The tort of intentional interference with contractual relations requires more than knowledge that a breach is substantially certain.
• Kunststoffwerk Alfred Huber v. R. J. Dick, Inc.
  621 F.2d 560· 3d Cir.· 1980-05-12 ·cited 4×
  A seller must prove an agreement limiting damages to avoid liability for consequential damages; a course of dealing was insufficient to establish such an agreement here.
• Cates v. Morgan Portable Bldg. Corp.
  591 F.2d 17· 7th Cir.· 1979-01-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's calculation of consequential damages was clearly erroneous due to reliance on improper financial data and an overly certain estimate of future occupancy.
• 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.
• T & T AIR Charter, Inc. v. Duncan Aircraft Sales
  566 So. 2d 361· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-09-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the buyer failed to establish the right to replevin for the aircraft under the UCC.
• Am. Plastic Equip., Inc. v. CBS Inc.
  886 F.2d 521· 2d Cir.· 1989-09-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were unresolved factual disputes regarding whether the parties sufficiently identified the specific property to be purchased and whether the Statute of Frauds applied.
• Integrated Circuits Unlimited v. E.F. Johnson Co.
  875 F.2d 1040· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a buyer's effective rejection of goods, even if substantively wrongful, limits the seller to nonacceptance damages, and that the seller here was entitled to no damages due to identical contract and market prices and lack of lost volume status.
• Cianbro Corp. v. Curran-Lavoie, Inc.
  814 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous, resolving all disputes, and that Cianbro was entitled to set-off the disputed amount from its note payments.
• Myers v. Columbus Sales Pavillion, Inc.
  723 F.2d 37· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the auctioneer was not liable for conversion of sale proceeds when the buyer paid the seller with a worthless check, as the auctioneer had already remitted the proceeds to the buyer without notice of the seller's claim.
• Hardick v. Hill
  403 So. 2d 1125· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-09-23 ·cited 2×
  In this conversion lawsuit, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for the defendant boat seller Hill, holding that Hill had a superior right to repossess a Harbor cabin cruiser because his unpaid seller's interest under the UCC predated the appellants' unpe
• The Plastic Moldings Corp. v. Park Sherman Co.
  606 F.2d 117· 6th Cir.· 1979-09-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a buyer can recover consequential damages for increased production costs and sorting expenses due to defective parts, and can recover restitution for defective molds, but not for a second mold cancelled under a specific clause.
• Hendricks v. Callahan
  972 F.2d 190· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Minnesota law requires a buyer to demonstrate reliance on an express warranty to succeed in a breach of warranty claim, and that the facts did not support a breach of the Property Warranty or the Financial Statement Warranty.
• Dawn Int'l Ltd. v. Jacob Fleishman Sales, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-24
  A food broker sued a pork distributor for breach of contract, claiming to recover unpaid invoices for delivered products and losses from orders the distributor repudiated. The distributor counterclaimed for breach of warranty over defective ribs and storage fees. The court recomm
• Thurn v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-11
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state claims for breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment due to lack of privity, failure to plead with particularity, and failure to allege direct benefit, respectively.
• Toca v. Tutco, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-04
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring breach of warranty claims due to failure to allege injury, and that claims for breach of express and implied warranty, and unjust enrichment were otherwise deficient. The court deferred ruling on injunctive and declarator
• GE LIN v. Ecclestone Signature Homes OF Palm Beach, LLC
  59 So. 3d 267· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-04-13
  Ge Lin appeals a judgment requiring him to close on a purchase agreement for a pre-construction home with furnishings. The primary issue is whether the contract violates the statute of frauds because Schedule 1, which was supposed to list all furniture items, was not attached. Th
• Jeary K. Smith v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp.
  957 F.2d 1439· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-20
  A limited warranty's failure to serve its essential purpose does not automatically invalidate a distinct exclusion of consequential damages, especially when parties have relatively equal bargaining power and the exclusion is not unconscionable.
• Int'l Adhesive Coating Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, Inc.
  851 F.2d 540· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-18
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting the damages expert's testimony, as it had a sufficient factual basis under Federal Rules of Evidence 703 and 705.
• Matco Mach. & Tool Co. v. Cincinnati Milacron Co.
  727 F.2d 777· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-09
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court's jury instructions, while not perfectly precise in all aspects, did not constitute reversible error, and any unpreserved errors did not rise to the level of plain error.
• The Home Indem. Co. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. & Parker G.M.C. Truck Sales, Inc.
  474 F.2d 1081· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-09
  The court held that the trial court's factual findings regarding ownership transfer were not clearly erroneous, and thus the judgment affirming the insurance coverage was correct.
• Am. Paper & Pulp Co., Inc. v. Denenberg
  233 F.2d 610· 3d Cir.· 1956-05-21
  Under the Pennsylvania Sales Act, a buyer who rescinds a sale for breach of warranty is limited to recovering the purchase price paid, less the salvage value of the goods, and cannot recover consequential damages or lost profits.