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

• Medley Harwoods, Inc. v. Novy
  346 So. 2d 1224· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-06-14 ·cited 8×
  A complaint for collection on a dishonored corporate check states a good cause of action against the maker who signed in his individual capacity, absent proof otherwise between the parties.
• State OF Ill. ex rel. Richard K. Lignoul v. Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago
  536 F.2d 176· 7th Cir.· 1976-05-27 ·cited 8×
  Customer Banking Communication Terminals (CBCTs) are branch banks under the National Bank Act for all functions, including cash withdrawals and loan payments.
• In re LAW Research Serv., Inc. v. Crook
  524 F.2d 301· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-21 ·cited 8×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of a filed secured claim even after confirmation of an arrangement, especially when the claim's validity was contested by the debtor.
• Cargill v. Weston
  520 F.2d 669· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in entering judgment for the defendant despite a jury verdict for the plaintiff, as the procedural requirements for setting aside a jury verdict were not met.
• Hardy v. Gissendaner
  508 F.2d 1207· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-27 ·cited 8×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 3
  The court held that Alabama's holder-in-due-course law does not violate due process by preventing homeowners from asserting defenses against an assignee, as they retain the right to sue the original contractor.
• In re Bristol Assocs., Inc.
  505 F.2d 1056· 3d Cir.· 1974-11-05 ·cited 8×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  A lender taking a security interest in a lessor-borrower's lease and rents thereunder does not need to comply with Article 9 filing provisions to perfect its interest against a Receiver in bankruptcy.
• In re Pub. Leasing Corp. (two cases). Cmty. Nat'l Bank OF Warr Acres v. Victory
  488 F.2d 1369· 10th Cir.· 1973-12-14 ·cited 8×
  A Chapter 10 reorganization proceeding is not a bankruptcy in the ordinary sense, and a creditor is entitled to attorney fees incurred prior to adjudication in bankruptcy. The cross-collateralization clause in security agreements is valid and should be given effect.
• The Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York & E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc. v. The KEY Biscayne Bank
  483 F.2d 438· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred by not making required findings of fact and conclusions of law before entering judgment on the merits.
• Westric Battery Co. v. Standard Elec. Co., Inc.
  482 F.2d 1307· 10th Cir.· 1973-07-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while negligence and breach of warranty claims were properly submitted, the strict liability theory as applied to business losses was not prejudicial. However, certain damage elements, specifically impairment of capital and speculative future profits, were imp
• In re DeVITA Fruit Co. v. FCA Leasing Corp.
  473 F.2d 585· 6th Cir.· 1973-02-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a lease agreement, where the lessor retains title and there is no option for the lessee to purchase the property for nominal consideration, is a bona fide lease and not a security interest, entitling the lessor to reclaim the property from the bankruptcy trust
• KLPR TV, Inc. v. Visual Elecs. Corp.
  465 F.2d 1382· 8th Cir.· 1972-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that KLPR waived its warranty rights by accepting the equipment and failing to provide timely notice of breach, but affirmed the trial court's finding of an express warranty to Noark. The court reversed the damages awarded to Noark, finding them unsupported by evid
• Kaufman v. Diversified Indus., Inc.
  460 F.2d 1331· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its calculation of damages by failing to distinguish between damages for non-tendered shares and damages for delayed tender, and that damages for delayed tender are not recoverable without proof of intent to sell.
• Murphy v. Eaton
  444 F.2d 317· 6th Cir.· 1971-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff on counts of wanton and wilful misconduct and implied warranty, as Michigan law does not impose absolute liability and requires consideration of obvious defects and user misuse.
• Holcomb v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
  439 F.2d 1150· 5th Cir.· 1971-03-02 ·cited 8×
  A manufacturer cannot be held liable for economic loss based on implied warranty without proof of a defect existing at the time of sale. A warranty disclaimer must be conspicuous to be effective under the UCC.
• Beardmore v. Abbott
  218 So. 2d 807· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-02-11 ·cited 8×·via Florida Uniform Commercial Code
  The court affirmed a summary judgment for the plaintiff, an accommodation endorser, who sought indemnification from the defendant for a defaulted promissory note used to finance the first year's insurance premium.
• Walter D. Sanders in Bankr. for the Atlanta Times, Inc. v. Nat'l Acceptance Co. of Am.
  383 F.2d 606· 5th Cir.· 1967-10-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the agreements were leases and not security interests under the Uniform Commercial Code.
• The Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Am. Sur. Co. OF NEW York
  347 F.2d 18· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant bank, which paid over a second forged check drawn on a depositor's account, could not escape liability to the plaintiff (assignee of the first bank and depositor) based on the doctrine of Price v. Neal or inconsistent remedies, as the funds remai
• Onewest Bank, FSB v. Nunez
  193 So. 3d 13· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-03-02 ·cited 7×
  OneWest Bank appeals the dismissal of its foreclosure action on the grounds that the promissory note was not negotiable. The court reverses, holding that the note was negotiable because its reference to the mortgage for acceleration and collateral rights did not make the promise
• Rosanna Guzman and Francisco Guzman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Indymac Indx Mortg. Loan Tr. 2004-AR8 Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-AR8
  179 So. 3d 543· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-11-25 ·cited 7×
  Deutsche Bank failed to establish standing to foreclose on the Guzmans' mortgage because it did not prove possession of the endorsed promissory note at the time it filed its initial complaint. The court reversed the foreclosure judgment, holding that standing must be established
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  61 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 1999-07-20 ·cited 7×
  The court held that plaintiffs are not entitled to assert a claim for punitive damages because their allegations constitute a breach of contract, not an independent tort, and the request to amend the complaint was untimely and would cause undue prejudice.
• Sussex Drug Prods. v. Kanasco, Ltd.
  920 F.2d 1150· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-19 ·cited 7×
  A partial summary judgment on some claims is not appealable under Rule 54(b) if a remaining claim arises from the same transaction or series of transactions, as this constitutes an improper attempt to split a cause of action.
• Interpool Ltd. v. Char Yigh Marine (Panama) S.A.
  890 F.2d 1453· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the charter party was a disguised security instrument, not a true lease, and that the cancellation of the charter party did not extinguish the lessee's attachable interest in the vessel at the time of arrest.
• Sierra Diesel Injection Serv., Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., Inc.
  890 F.2d 108· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-09 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the disclaimers of implied warranties in the software and hardware agreements were conspicuous. Therefore, the buyer could not recover damages for breach of implied warranty.
• Rajsfus v. Anne Texier Fabri
  535 So. 2d 690· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-27 ·cited 7×
  Rajsfus appeals the dismissal of his second lawsuit against Fabri and Sofram on a dishonored check, arguing the trial court erroneously applied res judicata. The court reversed, holding that separate dishonored instruments constitute separate causes of action that accrue at diffe
• TKO Equip. Co. v. C & G Coal Co., Inc.
  863 F.2d 541· 7th Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 7×·via Ucc-1 Filing
  A party cannot attack its own characterization of a transaction as a lease after signing documents disclaiming a security interest, especially to the detriment of a third party who relied on those documents.
• Leamon and Nellie Jean Chadwick v. Corbin
  476 So. 2d 1366· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-10-18 ·cited 7×·via Ucc-1 Filing
  The Chadwicks sued their attorney Bill Corbin for negligence in preparing business sale documentation, alleging he failed to file a security interest with the Florida Secretary of State. The trial court directed a verdict for the Chadwicks on the malpractice issue and the jury aw
• Hill v. Basf Wyandotte Corp.
  696 F.2d 287· 4th Cir.· 1982-12-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that oral representations by a sales agent did not create a binding warranty, and the farmer was bound by the express warranty and limited remedies stated on the product label.
• E. S. I. Meats, Inc. v. Gulf Fla. Terminal Co. & Cont'l Ins. Co.
  639 F.2d 1348· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-20 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed findings on causation and Borden's damages but remanded for recomputation of damages for E.S.I. and Crest, and affirmed the award of prejudgment interest.
• BVA Credit Corp. v. Fisher
  369 So. 2d 606· Fla. 1st DCA· 1978-09-21 ·cited 7×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  BVA Credit Corporation appealed a trial court judgment that limited its damages recovery against guarantors of a defaulted equipment lease. The appellate court reversed, holding that a lessor may re-let and sell equipment after default and recover the deficiency from the original
• Pac. Trading Co. v. Wilson & Co., Inc.
  547 F.2d 367· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the cited federal statutes do not create a private right of action for monetary damages, and therefore, the dismissal of claims based on these statutes was proper.
• 1944 Beach Boulevard, LLC v. Live Oak Banking Co.
  20 F.4th 746· 11th Cir.· 2021-12-10 ·cited 6×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The court certified a question of Florida law regarding the interpretation of the safe harbor provision for financing statements to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Barnes v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc.
  499 F. Supp. 2d 1311· S.D. Fla.· 2007-07-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the reservation agreement did not constitute a binding contract for a specific aircraft due to undefined essential terms and that the defendant was permitted to change specifications and price under the agreement's express terms.
• Daiwa Prods., Inc. v. Nationsbank, N.A.
  885 So. 2d 884· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-09-01 ·cited 6×·via Uniform Commercial Code (Ucc) Article 5
  Daiwa Products sought to enjoin payment on a letter of credit after discovering the beneficiary (SAAT) fraudulently misrepresented that goods had been shipped. The trial court found United Mizrahi Bank, which financed SAAT's operations and presented the draft for payment, was a h
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  61 F. Supp. 2d 1300· S.D. Fla.· 1999-07-01 ·cited 6×
  Extrinsic evidence is admissible to explain or supplement a contract's terms, particularly regarding the implied covenant of good faith and open price terms, under the Uniform Commercial Code.
• Hind-Marsh v. Puglia
  665 So. 2d 1091· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-12-20 ·cited 6×
  A representative who signs an instrument without indicating a representative capacity is personally obligated, even if the instrument names the represented person, unless a contrary understanding is established.
• Bel-Bel Int'l Corp. v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A.
  158 B.R. 252· S.D. Fla.· 1993-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants' motions to stay proceedings and dismiss counterclaims were unpersuasive, denying the stay and granting the dismissals.
• Mathias v. Walling Enters., Inc.
  609 So. 2d 1323· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-09-11 ·cited 6×
  The court addressed the priority of a landlord's statutory lien for rent against a bank's perfected security interest in a liquor license and other collateral. The court held that while a landlord's lien can attach to a liquor license without filing, a prior perfected security in
• Tudor Dev. Grp., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  968 F.2d 357· 3d Cir.· 1992-06-22 ·cited 6×·via Uniform Commercial Code (Ucc) Article 5
  The dissent argues that an issuer of a standby letter of credit may qualify for equitable subrogation in proper circumstances, and that the equities in this case warrant further factual determination.
• Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Dante Gill
  960 F.2d 336· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the timing of the IRS levy relative to the closing of the taxpayer's accounts and whether the claimant is a holder in due course, precluding summary judgment.
• Alpine State Bank v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
  941 F.2d 554· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bank's claim was not covered by the insurance bond because the customer's actions did not constitute forgery as defined by the bond, nor did they meet the criteria for on-premises loss.
• Jan and Myrtle Bloempoort v. Regency Bank OF Fla.
  567 So. 2d 923· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-09-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the bank, as the payees of a negotiable instrument bearing a forged endorsement are entitled to sue the drawee bank for conversion under Florida Statute § 673.419(1)(c).
• Davidson OIL Country Supply Co., Inc. v. Klockner, Inc.
  908 F.2d 1238· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 6×
  The trial court prejudicially erred by excluding evidence of similar failures of Ferrotubi pipe, and the interlocutory summary judgment for Klockner on the 8% pipe was also erroneous.
• Ragen Corp. v. Kearney & Trecker Corp.
  912 F.2d 619· 3d Cir.· 1990-08-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Ragen could recover consequential damages because the exclusive remedy of repair or replacement failed in its essential purpose, but reversed the direct damages award due to insufficient proof of actual value.
• Czarnecki v. Roller
  726 F. Supp. 832· S.D. Fla.· 1989-11-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a buyer's reliance on their own independent investigation, rather than alleged misrepresentations by a broker, precludes a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. However, genuine issues of material fact regarding a broker's knowledge and concealment of a yach
• In re Merritt Dredging Co., Inc. v. Campbell-Appellee
  839 F.2d 203· 4th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 6×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 9
  The dissenting judge would hold that the transaction is governed by Louisiana law, which would classify the agreement as a lease with an option to purchase, thus favoring Compliance Marine's claim.
• Cmty. Bank OF Homestead v. Barnett Bank OF THE Keys
  518 So. 2d 928· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-12-15 ·cited 6×·via Ucc-1 Filing
  The court held that the determination of whether a modular home affixed to realty becomes a fixture is a question of fact, not a matter of law, and that the trial court erred in ruling summarily.
• Nat'l Controls Corp. v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp.
  833 F.2d 491· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant's breaches were the proximate cause of its alleged lost profits or that its claims for losses on existing contracts or expenses were sustainable.
• Wis. Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  830 F.2d 1405· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that plaintiffs' tort claims for economic loss were barred by the contract's exclusive remedy and limitation of liability provisions, and that these provisions did not fail of their essential purpose.
• Graphic Sales, Inc. v. Sperry Univac Division
  824 F.2d 576· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-21 ·cited 6×·via Uniform Commercial Code Article 2
  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.
• Papex Int'l Brokers Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  821 F.2d 883· 1st Cir.· 1987-06-29 ·cited 6×
  A payee cannot sue a collecting bank for paying on a forged indorsement if the payee never received or possessed the instrument, as delivery is required to become a holder with standing.