Uniform Commercial Code

807 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 268 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• In re Tri-State Equip., Inc. v. Tri-State Equip., Inc.
  792 F.2d 967· 10th Cir.· 1986-06-03 ·cited 34×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A financing statement's description of collateral is sufficient if it puts hypothetical future creditors on notice of a possible security interest, even if the description is ambiguous or contains minor errors.
• Reina v. Gingerale Corp.
  472 So. 2d 530· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-06-25 ·cited 34×
  Raul Reina appealed the summary judgment dismissing his claim against Gingerale Corporation, a successor company that purchased assets from Coconut Restaurant Corporation. The court affirmed, holding that under traditional corporate law, a successor corporation is not liable for
• Taylor & Gaskin, Inc. v. Chris-Craft Indus.
  732 F.2d 1273· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 34×
  A buyer cannot recover recall expenses attributable to its own negligence as consequential damages for a seller's breach of warranty.
• Tex. OIL & GAS Corp. v. The United States
  466 F.2d 1040· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 34×
  The federal tax lien has priority over the bank's security interest in accounts receivable that were not acquired within 45 days of the tax lien filing.
• Parke-Davis & Co. v. Stromsodt
  411 F.2d 1390· 8th Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support findings of proximate causation, breach of implied warranty, and negligence.
• Ivon Mesa v. BMW OF N. Am., LLC
  904 So. 2d 450· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-05-04 ·cited 33×
  Mesa, a lessee of a BMW vehicle, sued BMW of North America under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) for breach of express and implied warranties and revocation of acceptance. The court held that the MMWA applies to vehicle leases where the lessee qualifies as a consumer, but p
• Brownlow v. Aman
  740 F.2d 1476· 10th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellants' motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction and in rejecting their proffered jury instructions.
• Miller Indus. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
  733 F.2d 813· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-04 ·cited 33×
  A negligent failure to warn of a known product defect, even without physical damage, can form a basis for a maritime tort action if the warranty does not expressly disclaim negligence. Crew members can recover lost wages based on a share of the lost catch when their compensation
• Cities of Bethany v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  727 F.2d 1131· D.C. Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that FERC's interpretation of customer classifications and rate disparities was reasonable, but its interpretation of the Casey Group contracts, limiting rate increases to prospective application, was erroneous.
• 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.
• Smith v. NO. 2 Galesburg Crown Fin. Corp.
  615 F.2d 407· 7th Cir.· 1980-01-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that TILA counterclaims filed more than one year after the alleged violations are time-barred, a Wage Earner's Plan does not survive conversion to straight bankruptcy if payments were not completed, and TILA actions survive the death of the plaintiff as a matter of
• 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.
• Sabatino v. Curtiss Nat'l Bank of Miami Springs
  415 F.2d 632· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-03 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the decedent's personal checkbook was admissible under the Federal Business Records Act, and its exclusion necessitated a new trial.
• Palau Int'l Traders, Inc. v. Narcam Aircraft, Inc.
  653 So. 2d 412· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-03-15 ·cited 31×
  Palau International Traders purchased a used airplane from International Airlines Holdings Corporation and sought negligence damages from Narcam Aircraft, a repair station that inspected the airplane for airworthiness certification, when the plane's landing gear was later found t
• Mettler, Inc. v. Ellen Tracy, Inc.
  648 So. 2d 253· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-12-30 ·cited 31×
  A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action must be reviewed by accepting all factual allegations as true and resolving inferences favorably to the plaintiff; the trial court erred in dismissing counts alleging fraud in the inducement, fraud in the concealment, and
• Pennzoil Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  789 F.2d 1128· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) fundamentally misconstrued this Court's prior decision in Pennzoil by misapplying the Order 23 presumption and failing to properly construe contract language under state law.
• Perkins State Bank v. Connolly
  632 F.2d 1306· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-19 ·cited 31×
  The court held that Florida law, not federal law, governs attorney's fees in this diversity interpleader action among claimants, and Florida law does not permit recovery of attorney's fees for bad faith or under the UCC conversion statute cited. However, Florida law does allow re
• 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.
• Pringle-Associated Mortg. Corp. v. S. Nat'l Bank OF Hattiesburg
  571 F.2d 871· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-20 ·cited 31×·via Uniform Commercial Code (Ucc) Article 5
  An issuing bank's obligation to honor a draft under a letter of credit is independent of the underlying contract between the bank's customer and the beneficiary.
• Whitaker v. Harvell-Kilgore Corp. & Day & Zimmerman, Inc.
  418 F.2d 1010· 5th Cir.· 1969-12-03 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the defendants were not protected by sovereign immunity and that the plaintiff had stated a claim for simple negligence, but not for breach of warranty or strict liability.
• Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass'n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc.
  874 F.2d 1346· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the contract contained an implied covenant for Shoshone to stay in business for the duration of the contract, so long as its members have a need for power, and that the district court's denial of a permanent injunction should be vacated and set aside.
• 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.
• Marino Indus. Corp. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  686 F.2d 112· 2d Cir.· 1982-08-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that strict compliance with the terms of a letter of credit is required, and ambiguities are construed against the bank, but deviations from explicit requirements justify refusal of payment. The court reversed and remanded one claim due to ambiguities and potential
• Am. Triticale, Inc. v. Nytco Servs., Inc.
  664 F.2d 1136· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that American was the real party in interest, the indemnity clauses did not bar claims for intentional torts, and res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to preclude the suit.
• Jannette Carr v. Blazer Fin. Servs.
  598 F.2d 1368· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-23 ·cited 30×
• 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.
• The Nat'l Shawmut Bank OF Boston v. NEW Amsterdam Cas. Co., Inc.
  411 F.2d 843· 1st Cir.· 1969-05-05 ·cited 30×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court denied the petition for rehearing, reaffirming its prior decision that a surety's right of subrogation is not displaced by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
• Gilison v. Flagler Bank
  303 So. 3d 999· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-08-26 ·cited 29×·via Ucc-1 Financing Statement
  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims for aiding and abetting fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud against Flagler Bank arising from loans made to a luxury car company that engaged in fraudulent floor plan financing. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the
• Tingley Sys., Inc. v. Healthlink, Inc.
  509 F. Supp. 2d 1209· M.D. Fla.· 2007-05-08 ·cited 29×
  The court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's motion in part, finding disputed issues of material fact regarding breach of contract and copyright infringement claims.
• Cole Taylor Bank v. Shannon
  772 So. 2d 546· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-09-01 ·cited 29×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 3
  Cole Taylor Bank appealed summary judgments and a bench trial judgment in a dispute over a home equity line of credit with the Shannons. The court reversed the summary judgment on the promissory note claim due to genuine issues of material fact regarding discharge, affirmed summa
• Gregg v. U.S. Indus., Inc.
  887 F.2d 1462· 11th Cir.· 1989-10-25 ·cited 29×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions or the application of damages.
• Monsanto Agric. Prods. Co. v. Clinch Edenfield
  426 So. 2d 574· Fla. 1st DCA· 1982-11-16 ·cited 29×
  Monsanto appeals a judgment for breach of warranty and negligence in connection with its herbicide product Lasso, which failed to control weeds in the farmer's soybean crop. The court reverses the negligence judgment but affirms the breach of express warranty, holding that Monsan
• United States v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank
  538 F.2d 1101· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-15 ·cited 29×
  The government was entitled to enforce its levies because the depositors retained property rights in their bank accounts at the time of the levy, and the banks' actions did not extinguish these rights prior to the levy.
• R. E. B., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.
  525 F.2d 749· 10th Cir.· 1975-10-21 ·cited 29×
  The court held that allowing recovery for both lost profits and diminution in property value constituted a double recovery, and the judgment must be reduced to eliminate this overlap.
• King v. Hilton-Davis
  855 F.2d 1047· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-23 ·cited 28×
  A manufacturer is not liable in tort for economic loss resulting from damage solely to the product itself; the remedy lies in contract law.
• United States v. Pollak
  844 F.2d 145· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that restitution cannot be ordered for counts on which a defendant was acquitted, nor for incidental recovery expenses, and that adequate findings on the defendant's ability to pay are required.
• 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
• Edmondson v. Allen-Russell Ford, Inc.
  577 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-28 ·cited 28×
  Assignments of returned or unearned insurance premiums constitute security interests under the Truth-In-Lending Act and Regulation Z, and such interests must be clearly disclosed to consumers.
• The Singer Co. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
  579 F.2d 433· 8th Cir.· 1978-06-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose can coexist with an express warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code, and that the jury was properly instructed to consider the implied warranty claim.
• R.I.D.C. Indus. Dev. Fund v. Snyder
  539 F.2d 487· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 28×
  A bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to confirm a Chapter XI arrangement voluntarily entered into by a secured creditor, and such an arrangement does not affect the liability of the debtor's guarantors for the remaining unpaid debt.
• Armen de Filippo & Sheldon Fleishman t/a A & S v. Ford Motor Co.
  516 F.2d 1313· 3d Cir.· 1975-05-08 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the concerted action of Ford and its dealers did not constitute a per se unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Act because plaintiffs were not deprived of market access, only of special terms. The court also held that the alleged contract was unenf
• Keystone Aeronautics Corp. v. R. J. Enstrom Corp.
  499 F.2d 146· 3d Cir.· 1974-06-26 ·cited 28×
  A freely negotiated and clearly expressed waiver of strict liability under § 402A is permissible between business entities of equal bargaining strength, but the language used must be sufficiently particular to demonstrate this intent.
• DuBAY v. Everette H. Williams
  417 F.2d 1277· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a pre-Code security agreement invalid under state law remains invalid even after the UCC's effective date, and that a creditor's perfected security interest in after-acquired accounts receivable, perfected before the four-month preference period, is not a void
• In re Excel Stores, Inc.
  341 F.2d 961· 2d Cir.· 1965-02-11 ·cited 28×
  A minor error in a financing statement's debtor name, such as using 'Excel Department Stores' instead of 'Excel Stores, Inc.', is not seriously misleading under UCC § 42a-9-402(5) and does not invalidate the security interest.
• Pycsa Panama, S.A. v. Tensar Earth Techs., Inc.
  625 F. Supp. 2d 1198· S.D. Fla.· 2008-04-16 ·cited 27×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the plaintiffs' claims.
• Advance Fin. Corp. v. Isla Rica Sales, Inc.
  747 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-24 ·cited 27×
  The court held that Advance Financial Corp. (AFC) had a superior, perfected security interest in the accounts receivable from Isla Rica Sales, Inc. (Isla) because AFC properly perfected its lien under Georgia law, and Isla had notice of the assignment.
• Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. The Navajo Indian Tribe
  710 F.2d 587· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 27×
  The Navajo Tribe possesses the sovereign power to enact and enforce civil laws regulating the conduct of non-Indians who come onto tribal land to repossess vehicles, even if the vehicles were purchased outside reservation boundaries.
• Brook Vill. N. Assocs. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  686 F.2d 66· 1st Cir.· 1982-08-20 ·cited 27×
  A district court cannot disregard admissions deemed made under Rule 36 due to untimely responses simply because the court finds other evidence more credible, especially after trial has commenced, unless doing so would prevent manifest injustice.
• Delhomme Indus., Inc. v. Houston Beechcraft, Inc.
  669 F.2d 1049· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-11 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the choice of law provision in the second agreement, requiring application of Kansas law, was valid and enforceable, and that the buyer had waived implied warranties under Kansas law.
• Suggs v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. & State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.
  833 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1987-11-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of an insurable interest and no material misrepresentations, but remanded for recalculation of damages. The court reversed the denial of judgment n.o.v. on the bad faith claim, finding State Farm's investigation