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 Middle Atl. Stud Welding Co.
  503 F.2d 1133· 3d Cir.· 1974-08-07 ·cited 11×
  A security agreement must explicitly state its intent to cover after-acquired accounts receivable to be valid under the Uniform Commercial Code.
• In re Automated Bookbinding Servs., Inc. v. Hans Mueller Corp.
  471 F.2d 546· 4th Cir.· 1972-12-27 ·cited 11×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A debtor receives 'possession' of collateral under UCC § 9-312(4) upon physical delivery, not upon completion of contractual tender of delivery terms. A secured party's purchase money security interest loses priority if not perfected within ten days of the debtor receiving posses
• Yvon v. Baja Marine Corp.
  495 F. Supp. 2d 1179· N.D. Fla.· 2007-02-20 ·cited 10×·via Florida Uniform Commercial Code
  The court held that a boat is not a 'motor vehicle' under Florida's Lemon Law, but that claims for implied and express warranties and deceptive trade practices could proceed if privity is established.
• A-Abart Elec. Supply v. Emerson Elec. Co. & Littman Bros. Energy Supplies
  956 F.2d 1399· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that A-Abart's antitrust claim was a frivolous vertical non-price restraint not per se illegal, its contract claim failed due to the statute of frauds and lack of promissory estoppel, and its tortious interference claims were barred by competitor's privilege, thus
• Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, Ltd.
  591 So. 2d 953· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-10-29 ·cited 10×
  A lease provision prohibiting assignment of the lease does not bar the assignment of the right to receive payments due under the lease, absent specific language to the contrary.
• Bank OF Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc.
  906 F.2d 1185· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 10×
  A secured party's right to collect accounts receivable is subject to the account debtor's right to set off claims against the assignor that accrued before notification of the assignment, and a motion for reconsideration is not a substitute for a timely motion to amend the complai
• Republic Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md.
  894 F.2d 1255· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 10×
  The dissent argues the majority erred in holding that the bank could not recover under the Banker's Blanket Bond for losses arising from reliance on forged bills of lading.
• Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank
  874 F.2d 1177· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a district court must first assess the substantiality of federal claims to determine subject matter jurisdiction before considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and that sua sponte dismissals require notice and an opportunity
• In re Howard's Appliance Corp. v. Howard's Appliance Corp.
  874 F.2d 88· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a constructive trust imposed under New Jersey law in favor of Sanyo grants Sanyo an interest in the collateral superior to that of the debtor-in-possession, notwithstanding the debtor's strong-arm powers under Section 544.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Bank OF Boulder
  865 F.2d 1134· 10th Cir.· 1988-12-05 ·cited 10×·via Uniform Commercial Code (Ucc) Article 5
  The FDIC/Corporation can acquire and enforce otherwise nontransferable assets, such as a letter of credit, from a failed bank's receiver in a Purchase and Assumption transaction, notwithstanding state law or contractual restrictions.
• Hunt OIL Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  853 F.2d 1226· 5th Cir.· 1988-09-06 ·cited 10×
  The presiding AU did not err by giving less evidentiary weight to extrinsic evidence of intent than to contract language, as the AU permissibly determined the extrinsic evidence was unreliable.
• ART Press, Ltd. v. W. Printing Mach. Co.
  852 F.2d 276· 7th Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Art Press is entitled to prejudgment interest on the amount awarded for the price of the machine, as it was a sum due under an instrument of writing. The court affirmed the jury's award of damages for breach of warranty.
• Snaci v. Ill. Found. Seeds, Inc.
  830 F.2d 90· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-16 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that a contract for the sale of corn seed was formed between the parties despite IFSI's argument that no binding agreement existed until a signed writing. The court also affirmed the dismissal of SNACI's tort claims.
• Nyquist v. Randall
  819 F.2d 1014· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that lost profits from a lease arrangement are consequential damages, but the buyers were excused from the 'cover' requirement due to financial inability, and that a substantial non-conformity was not required for a breach of warranty claim seeking damages.
• Ginsu Prods., Inc. v. Dart Indus., Inc.
  786 F.2d 260· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the February 15, 1982 letter did not create a binding long-term exclusive dealings contract because material issues, particularly exclusivity, remained unresolved and a comprehensive contract was contemplated.
• Peoples Nat'l Bank OF Wash. v. United States
  777 F.2d 459· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-25 ·cited 10×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  Neither an unexercised right of setoff nor a security agreement that transfers no control over a deposit account creates an interest superior to a federal tax lien.
• United States v. Little JOE Trawlers, Inc.
  776 F.2d 1249· 5th Cir.· 1985-11-19 ·cited 10×
  Texas law does not require notice of intent to accelerate for a guarantor of an installment note, and the broad terms of the guaranty contract further obligate the guarantor to pay regardless of such notice.
• Reynolds Metals Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  758 F.2d 1073· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Westinghouse breached its contract by failing to provide a competent service engineer for installation supervision, but the award of repair costs as damages was improper because they constituted consequential damages excluded by the contract.
• James v. Bell Helicopter Co.
  715 F.2d 166· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that damages solely to the product itself are not recoverable in a products liability action under Texas law, but may be recoverable under Illinois law if the damage constitutes 'physical damage' rather than economic loss. The court also held that the appellant fai
• United States v. Irby
  618 F.2d 352· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Mississippi real property law, not the Uniform Commercial Code, governs the reasonableness of a foreclosure sale of real property interests, and that sovereign immunity does not bar counterclaims arising from the same transaction as the government's claim.
• In re Equitable Dev. Corp. v. Morry Wingold & W & G Holdings, Ltd.
  617 F.2d 1152· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-29 ·cited 10×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court held that the defendants' purported security interest in accounts receivable and contracts was subject to the Uniform Commercial Code filing requirements and was unperfected, and their interest in real property was unrecorded, thus neither was enforceable against the Tr
• Am. Invs-Co Countryside, Inc. v. Riverdale Bank
  596 F.2d 211· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-29 ·cited 10×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court held that a dispute between private parties concerning the interpretation of an FHA regulatory agreement, where the FHA's interest is not directly contested, does not arise under federal law for subject matter jurisdiction purposes.
• Pestana v. Karinol Corp.
  367 So. 2d 1096· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-02-27 ·cited 10×
  This case involves a contract for the sale of electronic watches from a Florida exporter to a Mexican buyer, with the central issue being whether the contract constitutes a shipment contract or destination contract under the Uniform Commercial Code. The court held that absent exp
• In re E. A. Fretz Co., Inc. v. Fitzgerald
  565 F.2d 366· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Uniform Commercial Code does not permit 'floating secured parties' who can obtain perfected security interests through post-bankruptcy assignments to a senior lienor.
• Cleveland Chair Co. & William R. Jackson v. The United States
  557 F.2d 244· Ct. Cl.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 10×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court held that the government, as a pledgee of Treasury bills, had no duty to reinvest matured bills or notify the owner of their maturity, and thus did not breach any implied security agreement.
• Jetero Constr. Co., Inc. v. S. Memphis Lumber Co., Inc.
  531 F.2d 1348· 6th Cir.· 1976-03-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred by entering an amended final judgment after the time for such motions had expired, and that the initial judgment should stand, but remanded for specific findings on damages.
• In re Manuel v. Pierce
  507 F.2d 990· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Roberts Furniture failed to establish a purchase money security interest for most items due to the agreement securing debt beyond the price of individual items.
• Charles E. Siljeg in Bankr. for Henry House Packing Co., Inc. v. The Nat'l Bank OF Commerce OF Seattle
  509 F.2d 1009· 9th Cir.· 1975-01-13 ·cited 10×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court held that the effectiveness of a financing statement under the Uniform Commercial Code depends on whether it substantially complies with requirements and is not seriously misleading to creditors, rather than a strict determination of the "true name" of the debtor corpor
• Amoco Pipeline Co. v. Admiral Crude OIL Corp.
  490 F.2d 114· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-08 ·cited 10×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 2
  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.
• Denny v. Seaboard Lacquer, Inc.
  487 F.2d 485· 4th Cir.· 1973-11-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that ordinary negligence can support a wrongful death action under Alabama law, and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of wanton conduct.
• Cap. Invs. Co. v. Executors OF the Estate OF Arthur R. Morrison
  484 F.2d 1157· 4th Cir.· 1973-09-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Uniform Commercial Code, not general equitable principles, governs the rights of transferees of negotiable instruments, and that the defendant was not a holder in due course.
• In re Samuels & Co., Inc. v. Mahon
  483 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-20 ·cited 10×
  The Packers and Stockyards Act regulations, establishing a fiduciary duty and requiring identification of carcasses until paid, override the Uniform Commercial Code's lien priority rules for unperfected security interests.
• Jorgensen v. Meade Johnson Labs., Inc.
  483 F.2d 237· 10th Cir.· 1973-07-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a complaint alleging personal injuries to twins caused by a mother's use of an oral contraceptive prior to conception should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim, as Oklahoma law would likely recognize such a cause of action based on principles
• Swindel v. Gen. Fin. Corp. OF Fla.
  265 So. 2d 393· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-08-15 ·cited 10×
  This case addresses whether a creditor who repossesses and sells a motor vehicle upon default can obtain a deficiency judgment against the debtor. The court held that under the Uniform Commercial Code and the security agreement terms, the doctrine of election of remedies does not
• J. F. Pritchard & Co. v. DOW Chem. OF Canada
  462 F.2d 998· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, as the balance of factors strongly favored litigation in Canada.
• Mahalsky v. The Salem Tool Co.
  461 F.2d 581· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the applicable statute of limitations is procedural and governed by the law of the forum state (Ohio), not the substantive law of the state where the contract was made (Pennsylvania).
• Leasing Assocs., Inc. v. Slaughter & SON, Inc.
  450 F.2d 174· 8th Cir.· 1971-10-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defense of illegality based on failure to qualify to do business was not properly preserved, but the evidence was insufficient to prove reasonable notice of the log loader sale, requiring a remand for that portion of the judgment.
• Invs. Syndicate OF Am., Inc. v. The City OF Indian Rocks Beach
  434 F.2d 871· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-12 ·cited 10×
  A city's motion to dismiss a bondholder's complaint for failure to state a claim was improperly granted, as the complaint sufficiently alleged breach of contract, breach of trust, and equitable estoppel.
• Ryan-Appellant v. Rolland
  434 F.2d 353· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the secured party's lien continued in the collateral despite the debtor's transfer of the collateral to a corporation, as the transfer was not authorized by the secured party and the secured party lacked notice.
• Mid-Eastern Elecs., Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank OF S. Md.
  455 F.2d 141· 4th Cir.· 1970-07-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the renewal of notes did not constitute future advances, and the assignment of contract proceeds served as a valid security agreement, giving the bank priority.
• Delmar Bank OF Univ. City v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md.
  428 F.2d 32· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the endorsements on the checks, made payable to a fictitious payee and endorsed by an agent without authorization, constituted a forgery under the terms of the Banker's Blanket Bond, and the insurer waived defenses not raised in its denial letter.
• In re Cantrill Constr. Co. v. Nolan Carter
  418 F.2d 705· 6th Cir.· 1969-11-24 ·cited 10×
  A renewal note does not extinguish the original debt unless a novation occurs, and a security agreement securing the original debt remains effective to secure the renewed obligation.
• United States v. McCLESKEY Mills, Inc.
  409 F.2d 1216· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-02 ·cited 10×
  A buyer of farm products from a farmer is not a buyer in the ordinary course of business and takes subject to a perfected security interest, allowing the secured party to recover for conversion.
• In re Hygrade Envelope Corp. v. Gibraltar Factors Corp.
  393 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1968-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trustee is entitled to recover the value of a preferentially transferred insurance policy, reduced by amounts attributable to new advances made in good faith, but not by advances secured by other collateral.
• Pete v. Jarrell and Arlie Junior Mick
  327 F.2d 233· 4th Cir.· 1964-01-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury.
• James Talcott, Inc. v. Assocs. Disc. Corp. & Mr. & Mrs. F. O. McConnell
  302 F.2d 443· 8th Cir.· 1962-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the distinction between a repossession and a trade-in, in the absence of evidence of prior conduct regarding trade-ins, was sufficient to prevent estoppel against the first assignee of a conditional sale contract.
• Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. McFADYEN
  194 So. 3d 418· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-04-27 ·cited 9×·via Florida Uniform Commercial Code
  Fannie Mae appealed a trial court's order vacating a foreclosure judgment and ruling that Fannie Mae lacked standing to enforce a lost promissory note. The Third District reversed, holding that Fannie Mae satisfied the statutory requirements for standing by demonstrating construc
• Sanchez v. Suntrust Bank
  179 So. 3d 538· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-11-25 ·cited 9×
  Appellants challenged a foreclosure judgment, arguing the trial court erred in admitting business records without proper foundation. The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed, finding the bank failed to establish that documents were made at or near the time of the events they de
• Gen. Aviation, Inc. v. The Cessna Aircraft Co.
  915 F.2d 1038· 6th Cir.· 1990-10-03 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the "continuing relationship" clause did not override the explicit one-year term of the contract and that the parol evidence rule barred extrinsic evidence contradicting the written agreement. The court also found that aircraft are not motor vehicles under Mic
• Intercorp, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.
  877 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-25 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred by submitting the issue of contract integration to the jury, rather than making a preliminary determination as required by the parol evidence rule.