CopyCited 89 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1976 Fla. LEXIS 4301
...restrictions are essential to its validity. As between private parties, a contract "that is not to be performed within the space of one year", Fla. Stat. §
725.01 (1973), or which is "for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more", Fla. Stat. §
672.201 (1973), is unenforceable unless reduced to writing, with certain exceptions not pertinent here....
CopyCited 59 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...The primary issue in appeal No. 72-102 concerns the applicability of the statute of frauds provisions of §
725.01, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. requiring a written memorandum signed by the party to be charged for an agreement not to be performed within one year, and §
672.201 Fla....
...Appellants Ashland and Cobia are not entitled to judgment because of jury finding in favor of Modern Fiber Glass and Slama on compensatory damages. VI. No error in order awarding new trial against Modern Fiber Glass and Slama in Appeal No. 72-103. The first issue we shall discuss is whether statutes of frauds, §§
672.201 and
725.01, may be avoided by a suit for fraud in the inducement....
...Elsberry v. Sexton,
61 Fla. 162,
54 So. 592; Williams v. Faile, Fla.App. 1960,
118 So.2d 599; Neveils v. Thagard, Fla.App. 1962,
145 So.2d 495, 497. However, in the case sub judice, the requirements of §
725.01 (contract for more than one year) and §
672.201 (sale of goods for a price of $500.00 or more) have been satisfied, first by memoranda signed by the party against whom relief is sought, and second by part performance of the agreement [6] by the parties....
...210,
23 So.2d 81, 85; Greenwald v. Food Fair Stores Corporation, Fla.App. 1958,
100 So.2d 200; Brod v. Jernigan, Fla. App. 1966,
188 So.2d 575; Evans v. Gray, Fla.App. 1968,
215 So.2d 40. [6] To resolve the issue of whether the requirements of the statutes of frauds, §§
672.201 and
725.01, were met, we were required to characterize the relationship between the parties....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 717899
...The alleged sale of these goods between a wholesaler and a retailer is clearly governed by the UCC, chapter 672, Florida Statutes (1991). As such, one would anticipate the existence of the standard documents used to memorialize such a sale of goods. See §§ 672.201-.210, Fla....
...rmal UCC transaction. If the sales documents were attached to the second amended complaint or the complaint was otherwise more specific, it is likely that these allegations of an oral contract, on their face, would violate the statute of frauds. See § 672.201(1), Fla....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79723, 2007 WL 3071408
...Plaintiffs do not dispute that the promise was made orally and never reduced to writing, but contend that the statute of frauds is inapplicable. In Florida, a contract for the sale of goods worth $500 or more is generally not enforceable unless it has been memorialized in a writing. See Fla. Stat. § 672.201(1)....
...Co.,
388 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1352 (S.D.Fla.2005); Eclipse Medical, Inc. v. American Hydro-Surgical Instruments, Inc.,
262 F.Supp.2d 1334, 1345 (S.D.Fla.1999). The court finds that plaintiffs' fraud claim is essentially a contract claim repackaged as a tort action, and therefore *1290 barred by §
672.201....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29467, 2009 WL 961135
...ion and Limerock have not established all of the elements of their claim, and because the oral contract is barred by the statute of frauds. The Court agrees that this claim is barred by Florida's Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds, Fla. Stat. § 672.201....
...ay of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his or her authorized agent or broker. Fla. Stat. § 672.201(1)....
...Tom's Foods, Inc.,
940 F.2d 1441, 1449 (11th Cir.1991) (holding that writings that predate oral contract are insufficient "to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties" under Georgia's Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Frauds, which is identical to Fla. Stat. §
672.201)....
...the purchase of various assets. There is also a disputed issue of fact as to whether the agreement could be performed within a year. See Yates v. Ball,
132 Fla. 132,
181 So. 341, 344 (1938). Therefore, §
725.01 does not apply. [44] See Fla. Stat. §§
672.201;
680.201....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 13214, 2002 WL 31039451
...erely derivative. See Hertz v. Salman,
718 So.2d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). We therefore conclude, as did the trial judge, that one or more of the statutes of frauds conclusively bar Conner's action. AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] §
672.201, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15370
...oing, the motion for summary judgment as to Count III is GRANTED. Count IV is for breach of contract. In accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a contract for more than $500.00 must be in writing in order to be enforceable. See Fla.Stat. § 672.201(1) (1978). [4] The contract in the case at bar may have never been in writing in any final form; however, there is an exception under the UCC for contracts that have been admitted to exist in the pleadings. See Fla. Stat. § 672.201(3)(b) (1978)....
...45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended. Fla.Stat. §
501.204 (1982). [2] Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) (1982). [3] See note 1, supra. [4] Fla.Stat. §
672.201(1) (1978) states, in pertinent part, the following: Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. [5] Fla.Stat. §
672.201(3)(b) (1978) states that "[a] contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable ......
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4366038
...an invoice for each transaction) by the parties constituted written contracts. Hanchett/Trenam argue similarly in the present lawsuit. This view is consistent with Florida law, in particular its adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. See generally § 672.201, Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21180126
...Next, the parties' contract is unenforceable for lack of an essential term, the quantity of chairs ASAL must order. That a quantity term is essential to a contract for the sale of goods is illustrated by Florida's statute of frauds provisions adopted from the Uniform Commercial Code. Section 672.201(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that a contract for the sale of goods in excess of $500 must be in writing to be enforceable. "A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing. " § 672.201(1) (emphasis added)....
...le, "[i]f the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his or her pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made, but the contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted." § 672.201(3)(b) (emphasis added)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31204, 2007 WL 1119192
...ionship is centered is unclear. Florida has an interest in this case and protecting a Florida Plaintiff, rendering the application of Florida law entirely appropriate. B. Count I Plaintiff objects to the R & R's analysis, arguing that (1) Fla. Stat. § 672.201 applies to its claims and thus there is a quantity term sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds; (2) the Statute of Frauds does not apply to fully performed contracts; (3) the R & R wrongly rejected Plaintiff's promissory estoppel argu...
...ts as to both new product (A-stock) and old product (B-stock) were unenforceable pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. She found that of the two potentially applicable Florida Statutes of Frauds, Fla. Stat. §
725.01, [2] the general *1193 statute, and §
672.201, [3] which governs oral contracts for sale of goods, §
725.01 controlled....
...Florida state court cases considering this issue have also applied §
725.01 to like factual scenarios. See, e.g., Coleman Co. v. Cargil Int'l Corp.
731 So.2d 2 (Fla.3d Dist. Ct.App.1998) (finding that oral distributorship agreement was unenforceable pursuant to statute of frauds, relying on both §§
725.01 and
672.201 in so finding.)....
...aphic territory. The Court adopts the R & R's analysis and agrees that Topp's breach of oral agreement claims, with respect to both A-stock and B-stock, are barred by the Statute of Frauds. To the extent Topp objects to the R & R on the grounds that §
672.201 rather than §
725.01 applies, the objection is overruled....
...bution agreement for A-Stock is enforceable. The writings relied upon by Topp are insufficient to remove the oral agreement from either of the two potentially applicable Florida Statutes of Frauds, i.e., Fla. Stat. §
725.01, the general statute, or §
672.201, governing oral contracts for the sale of goods....
...ould apply to determine whether the oral agreements at issue are enforceable pursuant to the Statute of Frauds. Uniden America contends that Fla. Stat. §
725.01, the Florida general Statute of Frauds, should apply. [8] Topp contends that Fla. Stat. §
672.201, the Florida Statute of Frauds regarding contracts for a specific sale of goods, should apply. [9] *1209 The undersigned finds that §
725.01, and not §
672.201, should control....
...1999), the plaintiff, a distributor, sued the defendant, a manufacturer of camping supplies, for an alleged breach of the parties' oral distribution agreement. The trial court entered judgments for the plaintiff after a jury verdict. The appellate court, relying on both §
725.01 and §
672.201(1), reversed the judgment, finding that the oral distributorship contract was for a period of more than one year, and was therefore unenforceable pursuant to the Statute of Frauds....
...we are exclusive for [Latin America] and all of this needs to go through us. This is a huge problem. The buyers think we are lying to them when we tell them we are exclusive. We have to have a definitive solution to this now." (DE # 135 at Tab 30). Section 672.201(2) states that a written, unobjected-to confirmation must be a) sufficient under the Statute of Frauds; and b) issued within a reasonable time after the formation of the oral contract....
...Furthermore, Topp did not send the email within a reasonable time after the alleged formation of the oral contract. Topp appears to allege that the oral distribution agreement for A-Stock began in 1998 or 1999. Topp sent the relevant email in May 2004. The undersigned finds that, under § 672.201(2), five years after the formation of an alleged contract is not a reasonable period of time within which to confirm the oral agreement....
...of Frauds requiring a written contract guaranteeing debt of another to be signed by person to be charged, the writing must contain the essential terms of the transaction). Moreover, the undersigned finds unsupported Topp's assertion that Fla. Stat. §
672.201, and not §
725.01, controls its indefinite oral exclusive distributorship claim. Section
672.201 concerns only specific transactions for goods, not the perpetual oral distributorship agreement which Topp alleges here. Section
672.201 states that it applies to contracts for the purchase of goods worth $500 or more. Indeed, §
672.201(1) states in part that "[a] writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing." None of the writings upon which Topp relies refers to either a specific sale of goods or to the purchase of more than $500 of goods. Thus, under §
672.201, the alleged oral agreement for A-Stock would not be enforceable for any specific amount of goods. In support of its contention that §
672.201 controls under the facts in this case, Topp primarily relies on American Zurich Insurance Co....
...the defendant. The defendant, relying on §
725.01, moved for summary judgment alleging that the contract was unenforceable because the defendant had not signed it and it was a promise to indemnify the plaintiffs insured. The plaintiff asserted that §
672.201 should apply because the alleged agreement was a contract for the sale of goods. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that §
725.01 barred the plaintiffs claim for indemnification. Id. at 244. The appellate court reversed, finding that the contract in question was for the sale of goods, so that §
672.201, not §
725.01, applied. Id. at 245. The appellate court further stated found it would not consider whether the agreement was enforceable under §
672.201 because the defendant had not pleaded §
672.201 as a defense, and that issue could be considered on remand. Id. at 245. American Zurich is distinguishable from the instant case, as it held that §
672.201 applied to a dispute involving the terms of a written contract for the sale of goods....
...Unlike the instant case, American Zurich did not involve a claim for breach of an alleged perpetual oral exclusive distributorship agreement, which both the Federal and Florida courts have considered under §
725.01. However, the undersigned further finds that even applying §
672.201, the alleged oral contracts are still unenforceable, as *1214 none of the documents relied upon by Topp, either singly or collectively, are sufficient to indicate the existence of any enforceable exclusive distribution agreement between the parties. Simply, Topp's argument also fails under §
672.201 because, as previously stated, none of the four writings upon which it relies contains a quantity term. Under §
672.201, an oral agreement to sell more than $500 of goods is enforceable if the agreement is evidenced by a writing which 1) evidences a contract for the sale of goods; 2) is signed by the party to be charged and 3) specifies a quantity. See Office Pavilion South Florida v. ASAL Products,
849 So.2d 367, 371 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct.App.2003). Even if §
672.201 applies in this case, Topp has not supplied any writing necessary to avoid the application of the Statute of Frauds; one which contains the necessary quantity requirement....
...The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $4,000,000.00. Id. at 369. The appellate court reversed, finding, inter alia, that the written contract for the purchase of chairs was unenforceable under § 672.201 because it did not contain a quantity term, that is, the amount of chairs which the plaintiff was required to purchase. The appellate court also specifically noted that under § 672.201(3)(b), a contract for the sale of goods is not enforceable beyond the quantity of goods admitted in the writing. Id. at 370. Even the cases cited by Topp do not support its position that the writings in this case would take the alleged oral agreement out of the Statute of Frauds under § 672.201....
...the record contains no writing containing a quantity term, and no relevant writing signed by both parties. Thus, Topp's reliance on Riegel is misplaced, and under the holding of Riegel, the writings put forward by Topp are insufficient under either §
672.201 or §
725.01....
...Again, in this case, there is no written agreement at all between the parties regarding A-Stock, and the record contains no writing which states, for example, that Topp must purchase all A-Stock from Uniden America, or indeed, any specific quantity from Uniden America. Therefore, even applying § 672.201, Uniden America is entitled to summary judgment as to Count I....
...In reversing the grant of summary judgment, the Fifth Circuit found, inter alia that the purchase order between the plaintiff and the local dealer was sufficient to take the alleged oral agreement the plaintiff *1217 and the defendant out of the Statute of Frauds, § 672.201....
...ndant. Id. at 1034. There is an important factual difference between the instant case and Impossible Electronic. In this case, the writings relied on by Topp are insufficient to take the alleged oral contract out of the Statute of Frauds, even under § 672.201, because none of the writings contain the required quantity term....
...unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged thereof or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized. [3] Fla. Stat. § 672.201 is titled Formal Requirements; statute of frauds, and states, in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for a sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense u...
...unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged thereof or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized. [9] Fla. Stat. § 672.201 is titled Formal Requirements; statute of frauds, and states, in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for a sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense u...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 712696
...The jury found that manufacturer had breached the agreement by virtue of the termination and the *969 reasonability of notice thereof, and awarded damages calculated on past sales for a period of 5 to 7 years in the future. We agree with manufacturer that no evidence or legal theory supports this award. UCC section 672.201 limits enforcement of oral contracts captured by the statute of frauds to only goods for which payment has been made or that have actually been received and accepted....
...Stamm,
695 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), rev. granted, Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., Nos. 90,321 and 90,426,
703 So.2d 475 (Fla. Dec. 12, 1997). We find no error in any of the other issues presented. DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See §
672.201(3)(c), Fla....
...(1997) ("A contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) but which is valid in other respects is enforceable ... with respect to goods for which payment has been made and accepted or which have been received and accepted (s.672.606))." [2] § 672.201(1), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 77
...1973, in that it was a special oral promise to answer for the debt or miscarriage of another (the subcontractor) within the meaning of the statute. Alternatively, the court held that such oral guarantee is unenforceable under the "Statute of Frauds" provision of the Uniform Commercial Code, § 672.201, F.S....
...As a consequence too, of course, the merchantability of his apartments was protected. Clearly, as in the foregoing cases, such "pecuniary" interest directly to the owner brings this case within the "leading object" rule. Concerning, now, the Statute of Frauds provision of the Uniform Commercial Code, § 672.201, supra, we hold that it is equally ineffective as a bar to enforcement of the contract sued on herein....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 424, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14972
...iff failed to comply with Section
559.27, Florida Statutes (1983), which requires that a tag reflecting the value of an item offered for auction be placed upon each item; and fifth, that the contract sued upon does not satisfy the statute of frauds, Section
672.201, Florida Statutes (1983)....
...t enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. Section 672.201(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 143, 51 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 426, 50 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 743, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 590
...ar of the Defendants' interests. C. The oral consignment agreements are not barred by the Statute of Frauds. Finally, the Defendants argue that the alleged oral consignment agreements are unenforceable and barred by the Statute of Frauds. Fla. Stat. § 672.201 states: Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500.00 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for s...
...The Trustee agrees that the statute of frauds governs the alleged oral consignment agreements; however, the contracts are not barred because two exceptions to the statute of frauds, admission and acceptance, apply to the instant situation. Fla. Stat. § 672.201(3) sets forth three exceptions to the statute of frauds....
...limit set for each of the Orally Consigned Corvettes prior to leaving them with the Debtor and that he would not have left the cars with the Debtor unless there was an agreed upon price. This testimony constitutes an admission pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 672.201(3)(b) that the Orally Consigned Corvettes were in the Debtor's possession at the time of filing pursuant to an enforceable oral consignment agreement....
...Finley admits that the Corvettes were placed with the Debtor with a set price established for the prospective sale of each vehicle, then once the Corvettes were physically placed in the Debtor's inventory, the Debtor accepted the goods as defined by Fla. Stat. § 672.201(3)(c)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...raight-forward reading of the contract between the parties, as expressed in the written terms of the invoices. It further found that Advanced Systems did not reject the terms of the invoices, and, therefore, the written terms governed under sections
672.201(2) and
672.207(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...Code. The trial court found Advanced Systems had not rejected Alumax's invoices, and, therefore, the written terms of the invoices, including the provision that sales taxes were the buyer's responsibility, governed. It based its decision on sections
672.201(2) and
672.207(2), Florida Statutes (1991). The objection-on-receipt provisions in sections
672.201 and
672.207 are sometimes confused. The portions of those sections relevant to this case are as follows:
672.201 Formal requirements; statute of frauds....
...Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless: *169 (a) The offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) They materially alter it; or (c) Notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received. Section 672.201 is not applicable here....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. | 4 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 68, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 679
...parties. That contract has not been produced and defendant suggests that the contract was lost when defendant's records were seized by a law enforcement agency and only partially returned. *327 The U.C.C. statute of frauds section, 2-201 ( Fla.Stat. § 672.201) requires the production of a written consignment agreement, signed by the buyer....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 34 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1506
...Rozema, defendant below, sought to avoid performance under the agreement arguing the Statute of Frauds, Section
725.01, Florida Statutes, in a motion for partial summary judgment. Wilson, in her memorandum in opposition to the motion, argued the agreement was a contract for sale and fell within the UCC Statute of Frauds, Section
672.201, Florida Statutes. Moreover, she claimed the oral agreement fell within an exception to the rule, viz. Section
672.201(3)(b), and was therefore enforceable....
...Rozema moved for partial summary judgment alleging the agreement violated the Statute of Frauds, Section
725.01, as being impossible of performance within one year. Wilson argued that the agreement was a contract for sale, falling within Article II of the UCC and therefore the Code's Statute of Frauds, Section
672.201(1). However, Wilson contended that the contract was nonetheless enforceable under Section
672.201(3)(b), in that Rozema allegedly admitted to a contract for sale in his pleadings....
...Here, however, no showing has been made *1141 that the parties to the agreement ever intended a sale. Therefore, absent that intent, and a seller-buyer relationship, we need not reach the issue whether the agreement is subject to the exception to the UCC Statute of Frauds, for Section 672.201(3)(b) is similarly predicated on the existence of a contract for sale....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 6 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 187, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1217, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2071, 1988 WL 48804
...Subsection (3) is only one of four ways the statute of frauds applicable to transactions involving securities under the UCC may be satisfied. [1] The Florida *979 Code Comments to this section expressly provide that subsection (3) is "new" to Florida law, and that it is to be interpreted like section 672.201(2), the Statute of Frauds provision regarding sale of goods and written confirmation between two merchants. [2] The Uniform Commercial Code Comment to 2-201(2) (672.201(2)) provides that the only effect this section has "is to take away from the party who fails to answer the defense of the Statute of Frauds; the burden of persuading the trier of fact that a contract was in fact made orally prior to the written confirmation is unaffected." (Emphasis supplied)....
...Penny Products, Inc.,
651 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir.1981), the court applied Florida law in a case involving the statute of frauds defense in a sale of goods. The trial court was affirmed by the circuit court in its finding that an order satisfied the statute of frauds, pursuant to section
672.201(2)....
...n 10 days after its receipt; or (4) The party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract was made for sale of a stated quantity of described securities at a defined or stated price. [2] 672.201 Formal requirements; statute of frauds....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3882, 2004 WL 592426
...George and was a promise “to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person.” In response, American Zurich asserted that section
725.01 was inapplicable. American Zurich asserted that because the alleged agreement was a contract for the sale of goods, section
672.201, Florida Statutes (1997), the statute of frauds contained in article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code — and not section
725.01 — was controlling....
...s a matter of law that section
725.01 was applicable to the agreement between American Zurich’s insured and St. George. The initial step in our analysis is to determine whether the parties entered into a contract for the sale of goods. If so, then section
672.201, the statute of frauds provided for in article 2 of the UCC, is controlling. Only upon a finding that section
672.201 is not controlling need we refer to the general statute of frauds, section
725.01. Cf. Rozema v. Wilson,
419 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (excluding the applicability of section
672.201 before analyzing the enforceability of a contact under section
725.01)....
...ed agreed to purchase and St. George agreed to sell one or more quantities of candle holders. Because candle holders meet the definition of “goods” contained in section
672.105, the parties’ agreement was for a transaction in goods. Therefore, section
672.201, not section
725.01, is controlling on the statute of frauds issue....
...George, the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of St. George on the theory that section
725.01 operated to bar the enforcement of American Zurich’s claims based on contractual indemnity. We need not consider the enforceability of the agreement pursuant to section
672.201 because St....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17770, 2005 WL 1432788
...If one or more frequencies on a multi-frequency system are occupied, a user can, with a trunking capable radio, automatically send or receive a transmissions on another frequency. [2] Significant hurdles stand in the way of appropriately alleging such a claim. The Statute of Frauds, FLA. STAT. § 672.201(1) or WASH....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 74 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 293, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5206, 2011 WL 1376686
...not in the house on the date set for closing, the Seller had breached. The Buyer also contended that there was no enforceable contract because the parties had not put the furniture and furnishing package in writing, violating the statute of frauds, section 672.201, Florida Statutes, which required that the sale of property above $500 be in writing to be enforceable....
...e similar to two existing and furnished model homes. The Buyer now appeals from that amended final judgment. The Buyer's primary contention on appeal remains what he argued in the trial court: the contract violates the statute of frauds contained in section 672.201, and oral modifications of the contract would be prohibited by this section. [2] Section 672.201 provides: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contra...
...s not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing. (emphasis supplied). Although both the parties and the trial court analyzed this case based upon the application of the statute of frauds for a sale of goods, section 672.201(1), the contract was for the sale of furnished real estate, not the sale of goods....
...Co. v. N. Am. Steel Corp.,
335 So.2d 18, 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)). Concluding that the predominant purpose of the contract was the sale of real estate, not goods, we apply the statute of frauds contained in section
725.01, Florida Statutes. Similar to section
672.201(1), section
725.01 requires that a contract for sale of real estate be in writing and signed by the party to be charged....
...For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The Seller signed it on June 18, 2005, and the property was to be completed in two years, that is, by June 18, 2007. [2] Even if we were to decide this case under Section 672.201, we would conclude that the statement of the price of the furniture, together with the references to the model homes and the layout of furniture attached to the contract constituted a sufficient statement of "quantity of goods" to sat...
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 5 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1281, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 2206
...ound for the 3,280,000 pounds that were not harvested or damages of $57,400.00. 15. In his pleadings, FORD has denied that he made any agreement with DRIVER. Furthermore, FORD argues that even if he did, the Statute of Frauds provisions contained in § 672.201, Florida Statutes, would bar enforcement of the contract....
...ases from DRIVER. 3. Aside from the argument that there was a "requirements" contract between the parties, DRIVER has also alleged that there was an oral contract between them whereby FORD agreed to purchase DRIVER'S entire watermelon crop. However, § 672.201(1), Florida Statutes, provides that "a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for the sale has been ma...
...t around this provision by arguing that a contract which is valid in all other respects is enforceable if "the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in Court that a contract for sale was made. . . ." § 672.201(3)(b), Florida Statutes....
...However, this argument fails to recognize that the judicial admissions exception to the Statute of Frauds is itself limited by the extent of goods admitted. Here, there is very little to indicate that FORD intended to purchase any more watermelons than those already purchased. Accordingly, the Court is compelled to find that § 672.201(1), Florida Statutes, is applicable and that FORD is not liable for any damages DRIVER may have suffered due to his inability to sell the watermelons....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 91, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 11675
reasonable time after notice of them is received. Section
672.201 is not applicable here. It deals solely with
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Wireless’s Second Affirmative Defense to Complaint). We affirm the part of the
trial court’s judgment finding no genuine issue of material fact that the agreement
was not a joint venture, and All Commerce did not fraudulently induce TM
Wireless to buy the telephones. See § 672.201(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 655, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1058, 1988 WL 20645
...Neither party disputes the fact that Hussey harvested and sold a specified quantity of Dicks’ watermelons, and Dicks does not allege that Hussey’s conduct was unauthorized, only that he was underpaid. These facts are sufficient to satisfy the statutory exceptions to the writing requirement. Section 672.201(3), Florida Statutes (1985); Lea Industries, Inc....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1607
...La Rosa denied any such agreement. The trial court upheld the oral agreement and entered judgment accordingly. We conclude that the parties' oral agreement to modify the terms of the prior final judgment violates the applicable statute of frauds and is therefore unenforceable. Section 672.201(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides in relevant part that: [A] contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a co...
...ght or by his authorized agent or broker. Sale of a part-interest in goods is considered a sale of goods, section
672.105(3), Florida Statutes (1983), and it is undisputed that the price of La Rosa's interest in the automobile exceeds $500. Further, section
672.201 is applicable to an agreement modifying a contract, as well as to the original contract....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 147, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 25, 1988 WL 205
...SHARP, J., concurs. ORFINGER, J., dissents with opinion. . Under a count against Boyd-Sharp, Booth’s obtained a favorable judgment but Boyd-Scarp is insolvent and the judgment apparently uncol-lectible. . The statute of frauds found in the U.C.C., section 672.201, Florida Statutes (1985), is not a defense here since the goods were received and accepted by Rathmann.
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Dec 10, 2024
...or more is not
enforceable . . . unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate
that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and
signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.” FLA.
STAT. § 672.201(1) (2024)....
...But the statute exempts contracts “[w]ith
USCA11 Case: 23-12095 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 01/24/2025 Page: 24 of 25
24 Opinion of the Court 23-12095
respect to goods . . . which have been received and accepted.” Id.
§ 672.201(3)(c).
The exemption applies here....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3524019
...unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized. Florida's Uniform Commercial Code, section 672.201(1), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient...
...[5] This argument fails to recognize that the oral contract, although based primarily on the terms of the Nordic Contract, is an independent agreement. Nor-Tech 1,
855 So.2d at 106. This independent agreement is not in writing and is not signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. See §§
672.201(1),
725.01, Fla....
...Toms,
150 Fla. 873,
9 So.2d 96, 97 (1942) (emphasis added). Because the oral contract in question was for the sale of goods over $500 and was not to be performed within one year, both the general and the Uniform Commercial Code statutes of frauds apply. §§
672.201(1),
725.01, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22003
...uld be primarily liable for the payment of Purveyors’ bills for goods thereafter received and accepted by Brickell Bay Club, precluding at that stage of the non-jury proceedings (a) a finding that Forte’s agreement was unenforceable under either Section
672.201 or Section
725.01, Florida Statutes (1977), because not in writing, Bruce Construction Corporation v....
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 1989 Bankr. LEXIS 625, 1989 WL 41923
...is paid in full. Open terms EOM 10th. Full legal rate of interest will be charged on all past due invoices. It is Magic Tilt’s contention that the language contained on the bottom of the invoice is equivalent to a consignment agreement. Fla.Stat. § 672.201 governs written consignment agreements....
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 18, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 83, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 589, 1992 WL 78046
...ught or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing. Fla.Stat. § 672.201....
...The monthly payment amount and number of payments outlined in the modification vary from those contained in the amended plan. Thus, essential terms of the modification are not expressed with reasonable certainty. CONCLUSION The Court finds that Fla.Stat. § 672.201(1) is applicable and no writing sufficient to establish an enforceable modification has been shown....
