Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...moset’s implied warranty theories. For example, under Florida law, a warranty that a seller’s goods are merchantable (fit for their ordinary purposes) is implied if the seller “is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” Fla. Stat. § 672.314....

...Florida has codified the implied warranty of merchantability, which, unless waived or modified, is always implied in a sale of goods by a merchant and includes the statutory requirement that goods "are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require." Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.314 (1992)....

...[5] This standard is derived not from negligence principles, but from those in implied warranty. See Keeton, supra, note 2, at 36-37. As Dean Keeton states: "The plaintiff is no longer required to impugn the maker, but he is required to impugn the product." Id. at 33. The Restatement's standard should be compared to Section 672.314(3), Florida Statutes (1979) (UCC 2-314), requiring that in order for a product to be merchantable, it must be "fit for the ordinary purposes" for which it was intended....

...plied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. We hold that appellees presented no evidence to support these instructions and that the district court erred in so instructing the jury. In order to be merchantable under Florida law, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.314, the RBC-I’s must have passed without objection in the trade under the contract description, be of fair average quality, and be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used....

...The decision whether to submit proposed special interrogatories rests within the trial judge’s discretion. See Jones v. Miles, 656 F.2d 103, 106 (5th Cir.1981). The burden of supporting the general verdict in a case containing multiple issues rests on the appellee. See id. 2 . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.314(2) provides: (2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as: (a) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (b) In the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and (c)...

...The insects were a latent condition that Albertson's could not discover because the insects were inside the sealed container. Although it played no active role in creating this condition, Albertson's, as the retailer, could be liable for such a box of cereal. See § 672.314, Fla....

...ur. We reverse for a new trial against H & M and a new trial on damages only against Ford. I. We first address the impropriety of the directed verdict in favor of H & M on Jones' claim against H & M for breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1975), provides that in a contract for the sale of goods where the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind, there is an implied warranty that such goods shall be merchantable, as that term is defined in succeeding portions of the section....

...Luby Chevrolet, Inc., 446 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Clearly, H & M, as the seller of the engines to Jones and the distributor of Ford industrial engines, is both a "seller," see § 672.103(d), Fla. Stat. (1975), and a "merchant," see § 672.104(1), Fla. Stat. (1975), under Section 672.314....

...Costa, Iori Farms, Inc., L & D Farms, and D & S Farms. [5] At trial, expert witnesses called by Jones testified that Ford was negligent in its design; Ford's experts testified that Jones' design of the system caused the engines to be overworked. [6] Section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1975), states: "(1) Unless excluded or modified (s....

...ion for a breach of warranty under Florida law are: (1) Facts in respect to the sale of the goods; (2) Identification of the types of warranties created, i.e. express warranty (Section 672.313, Florida Statutes); implied warranty of merchantability (Section 672.314, Florida Statutes); implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Section 672.315, Florida Statutes); (3) Facts in respect to the creation of the particular warranty....

...Florida has codified the implied warranty of merchantability, which, unless waived or modified, is always implied in a sale of goods by a merchant and includes the statutory requirement that goods “are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require.” Fla. Stat.Ann. § 672.314 (1992)....

...Centers, 578 So.2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 591 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1991). In a standard transaction between a buyer and seller of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the doctrine of caveat emptor has been modified by the implied warranties contained in section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...Count V: Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability A warranty that "goods shall be merchantable"—i.e., "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used"— is implied in any contract for the sale of goods if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. See Fla. Stat. § 672.314....

...4), and that under Florida common law there are no privity or notice requirements for implied warranty claims. While numerous recent developments in the Florida law of products liability have admittedly spawned confusion in the area of implied warranties, it is clear to this Court that the Florida Uniform Commercial Code, § 672.314 et seq., Fla.Stat., adopted in 1965, provides the exclusive remedy for breach of implied warranty by a seller of goods....

...In this case, since the only remaining party defendant, American Honda, is not the manufacturer, [4] but the distributor/retailer, there can be little doubt that any implied warranties made by the defendant in the sale of the subject motorcycle were "seller's warranties" falling squarely within the ambit of § 672.314 and § 672.315....

...of Dart, Dickinson, O'Riorden, Gibbons & Quale, Sarasota, for defendant Ellie's Book and Stationery, Inc. SCHEB, Judge. The Circuit Court for Sarasota County certified the following questions to this court pursuant to Fla.App. Rule 4.6(a): I. IS A RETAIL BOOK DEALER LIABLE UNDER SECTION 672.314, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO A PURCHASER OF A COOKBOOK FOR HER INJURIES AND DAMAGES CAUSED BY IMPROPER INSTRUCTIONS OR LACK OF ADEQUATE WARNINGS AS TO POISONOUS INGREDIENTS USED IN A RECIPE? II....

...case as to the claim against Ellie's. See Fla.App. Rule 4.6(a). Of course, our answers do not bear on the plaintiffs' action against the defendant, True. Plaintiffs argue that the first question is controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), Section 672.314, Florida Statutes; that the second question is answered by the common law of implied warranties. Section 672.314, Florida Statutes provides: (1) Unless excluded or modified (§ 672.316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind....

...Section 672.105, Florida Statutes. Cf. Lake Wales Publishing Co. v. Florida Visitor, 335 So.2d 335 (Fla.App.2d DCA 1976), holding printed pamphlets as goods under U.C.C. Clearly, the defendant Ellie's qualifies as a merchant with respect to books. Section 672.314(1), Florida Statutes. Thus, we approach the novel question of not whether Ellie's impliedly warranted the recipe book it sold to Mrs. Cardozo, but rather, the scope of that warranty. From reading Section 672.314(2), the requirement of merchantability most relevant here is (c), *1056 which requires goods to be "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used." As we have observed, books are goods....

...The insects were a latent condition that Albertsons's could not discover because the insects were inside the sealed container. Although it played no active role in creating this condition, Albertson's, as the retailer, could be liable for such a box of cereal. See § 672.314, Fla....

...At least one additional state has approved of the doctrine in dicta. Association of Apartment Owners of Park Towers v. Child, 1 Hawaii App. 130, 615 P.2d 756 (Haw. App. 1980). [3] Wells, Implied Warranties in the Sale of New Homes, 23 U.Fla.L.Rev. 626 (1971). [4] § 672.314, Fla....

...act, and the bailor would be liable for damages caused by defects in the product. That standard is not appreciably different from an implied warranty of merchantability which requires that the goods be fit for the ordinary purpose of such goods. See § 672.314, Fla....

...ld contain at least the following allegations: 1) Facts in respect to the sale of the goods; 2) Identification of the types of warranties created, i.e. express warranty (Section 672.313, Florida Statutes [1975]); implied warranty of merchantability (Section 672.314, Florida Statutes [1975]); implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Section 672.315, Florida Statutes [1975]); 3) Facts in respect to the creation of the particular warranty....

...ngerous to the user or consumer ... is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, ... ." [4] This is the "reasonably fit" standard prescribed under the UCC for determining a product's merchantability. See Section 672.314(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1979) (UCC 2.314(2)(c))....

...As discussed above, Premix has asserted separate claims for breach of an express warranty and breach of an implied warranty. These causes of action will proceed respectively under (a) UCC § 2-313, Fla. Stat. § 672.313 (expressed warranties); and (b) UCC § 2-314, Fla. Stat. 672.314 (implied warranty of merchantability) and UCC § 2-315, Fla....

...In all other aspects the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. [4] NOTES [1] Although all contracts state the law of Michigan will govern any disputes, both parties have relied upon Florida law. I view this as a waiver of the Michigan law provision and a mutual consent to apply Florida law in this case. [2] § 672.314, Fla.Stat....

...owner did not give rise to cause of action in strict liability); Jackson v. L.A.W. Contracting Corp., 481 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (contract to repair, seal, coat and restrip private roadway was not a transaction in good within the meaning of section 672.314 despite the use of a sealer in resurfacing, and the defect in resurfacing was not actionable as a breach of implied warranty of merchantability for goods sold by a merchant); Port Sewall Harbor and Tennis Club Owners Association, Inc....

...AFFIRMED. WENTWORTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Consistent with the representations of counsel at oral argument, Seitz testified that the pole was smooth, and there was no indention to indicate that a peg had been attached but had broken off. [2] Section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1981) provides an implied warranty of merchantability for goods sold by a merchant in kind....

...cancel each other out and the contract proceed without reference to either one. That, however, is not the end of the matter because Professor White further advocates *472 that a gap-filler from the code, if available, supply the missing term. Under section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1989), if the seller is a "merchant," which it clearly is sub judice, see section 672.104(1), Florida Statutes (1989), an implied warranty that the goods are fit for the particular purposes of use and are merchantable, arises. See § 672.314- § 672.315, Fla....

with respect to goods of that kind.” Fla. Stat. § 672.314(1). In order for goods to be merchantable, the

...placement of the gas tank in the body of the vehicle when it was struck from the rear by another vehicle while being used for its intended purpose, causing mortal injuries to John Fuquay who was then a user of the product." (emphasis ours) Sections 672.314 and 672.315, Florida Statutes, provide for implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, and such warranties are applicable to used motor vehicles....

...Weinbaum, 351 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); cf., Brown v. Hall, 221 So.2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). "A contract for the sale of second-hand goods, however, involves only such obligation as is appropriate to such goods for that is their contract description." Comment 3 to § 672.314, Florida Statutes, 19A Florida Statutes Annotated 222 (1966)....

...We conclude that Johnson is correct on the issue raised by its cross-appeal, and we determine that the disclaimer of warranties relied upon by McCormick and the trial court was insufficient to disclaim the implied warranty of "merchantability," under the Uniform Commercial Code, section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...gree with the finding that it was effective under provisions of the Code. In addition to the express terms of a contract for the sale of goods by a merchant, the law imposes a contractual term promising quality; i.e., the goods must be merchantable. § 672.314(1), Fla....

...requirement of merchantability therefore applies to the sale of the bulldozer by McCormick to Johnson, since, as we have determined, efforts by McCormick to disclaim this warranty were ineffective. Although the UCC does not define "merchantability," section 672.314(2) sets minimum standards for merchantability....

..., sealcoat, and restripe the owner's private road. The supplying of the Cosmicoat was a minor element in the transaction, which was essentially one for services. Accordingly, the contractor's work was not a transaction in goods within the meaning of section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides a cause of action for an implied warranty of merchantability for goods sold by a merchant....

...The written documents contain no explicit warranties of quality. The issue, as framed by Hanchett/Trenam in one of its subarguments, is whether the statutory implied warranty of merchantability ("a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale . . .," § 672.314(1)) enjoys the same five-year limitations period as the written contract itself, see § 95.11(2)(b), or entails a four-year period as a statutory liability, see § 95.11(3)(f), as Technical now urges....

...d warranty of merchantability and breach of warranty for fitness for a particular purpose. implied warranty of merchantability Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a claim for implied warranty of merchantability requires that the seller be a merchant. Section 672.314(1), Fla.Stat., provides in pertinent part: Unless excluded or modified, a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to the goods of that kind.......

...Finally, Plaintiff argues that by hiring a broker (Woods and Oviatt), Roller became a merchant. However, if this Court were to agree with this premise, then everyone who listed their house or boat for sale with a broker would be a merchant. Such a rule would render Section 672.314, Fla.Stat., meaningless....

...to the mishap. We are aware of no legal impediment to the establishment of appellant's claims under theories of strict liability or breach of warranty should the evidence presented to the trier of fact support such recovery. Uniform Commercial Code, § 672.314, Fla....

...Under those counts a cause of action is stated sufficient to be afforded an opportunity to adduce appropriate proof of at least the sums paid for the defective casket and any other damages, other than mental pain and suffering, related thereto. (See F.S. 672.314; F.S....

...om in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs and have considered the briefs and arguments of counsel. We therefore hold that the instant transaction constituted a sale and is subject to the implied warranties of merchantability or of ordinary use, § 672.314, Fla....

...n of safety program, product support, and maintenance; (3) gross negligence as to implementation of safety program, product support, and maintenance; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, under Fla. Stat. § 672.314 et seq.; (6) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla....

...n Florida is clarified by the Florida Supreme Court. The question remaining before the court is whether plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for breach of implied warranty under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code. Florida Statute § 672.314 states that "[u]nless excluded or modified (s....

...The trial court reserved ruling on the motion for directed verdict at that time. The motion was renewed at the close of all the evidence and denied. While Ryan may have had a viable claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, pursuant to section 672.314, Florida Statutes, he chose instead to sue on fitness for a particular purpose....

...re damaged and received compensation in court actions based on implied warranties. Arvida says these recoveries where no "goods" were involved provide support by analogy for extending to repair work the same warranties that apply to sales of goods. (§ 672.314, Fla....

...Detroit Edison Company, 38 Mich. App. 325, 196 N.W.2d 316 (1972). [5] "Services" and "repairs" are not synonyms. Arvida's claim against Procelite arose out of "repairs". The allegations against the repair company are not argued by Arvida to come within § 672.314, Fla....

...The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Contractors Supply on its mechanic's lien claim and against appellants on their counterclaim. We reverse. Count I of the original counterclaim asserted the existence of an implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1987). Contractors Supply answered the counterclaim and "admitted that the materials were impliedly warranted to Acrylic Stucco Applicators, Inc." but it denied that the warranty extended to appellants. [1] Section 672.314 provides for an implied warranty of merchantability where the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of the kind....

...ating an express warranty that the goods conformed to the affirmation or promise. See § 672.313, Fla. Stat. (1987). Nor were appellants given the opportunity to prove the goods were unfit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. See § 672.314, Fla....

...s into portable containers unless such container bears a seal of approval of a nationally recognized testing agency... ." I think the statute must be read in pari materia with that portion of the Uniform Commercial Code governing implied warranties. Section 672.314 states in pertinent part: (1) ......

...The purchaser could not have obtained the gasoline unless it was placed in some type of container, and, as a result of the delivery of the goods to the plaintiff in a defective condition, a breach of an implied warranty occurred. Even in the absence of Section 526.141, I think the provisions of Section 672.314 are susceptible to the interpretation that a breach of implied warranty transpires if goods, which are the object of the sale, cannot be delivered without a container, and the seller knowingly permits the goods to be delivered in a defective container....

...Despite the fact that the bottle had been loaned by the defendant to the plaintiff, the court held that the sales warranty attached to the goods supplied as well as the goods sold. I have found no cases that directly address the question before us. The answer lies, I think, in our construction of Section 672.314....

...ary purposes for which such goods are used’ — is implied in any contract for the sale of goods if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” Jovine v. Abbott Labs., 795 F.Supp.2d 1331, 1340 (S.D.Fla.2011) (quoting Fla. Stat. § 672.314 )....

...ions by consumers against retailers [Carter v. Hector Supply Co., Fla. 1961, 128 So.2d 390] nor any action based on ordinary common law warranties. Appellants base their cause of action on the theory of implied warranty of merchantibility under F.S. § 672.314 (1969), F.S.A. Therefore, the sole question which appellants would have this court determine is whether plaintiffs-lessees come within the ambit of § 672.318 which extends the provisions of F.S. § 672.314 (1969), F.S.A., thereby circumventing the privity requirement which would otherwise be encountered *46 in common law actions on implied warranties....

...ied warranty of merchantability, and Florida law does not recognize a strict liability cause of action where two parties are in privity of contract. [3] That warranty is found in § 2-314 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and is codified in Fla. Stat. § 672.314, in pertinent part as follows: "(1) Unless excluded or modified (s.672.316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind....

...Breach of Implied Warranty 20 The plaintiffs breach of implied warranty claim is based on Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code. See Complaint (DE# 93 at ¶ 28, 2/27/08). The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated Florida’s implied warranty of merchantability, Fla. Stat. § 672.314 , because the Implant Product was not fit for the ordinary purpose for which dental implants are used and the Implant Product was not adequately contained, packaged or labeled....

...moset’s implied warranty theories. For example, under Florida law, a warranty that a seller’s goods are merchantable (fit for their ordinary purposes) is implied if the seller “is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” Fla. Stat. § 672.314....

...For this reason, this Court directed a dismissal of the claim set forth in Count II. This leaves for consideration the claim set forth in Count I of the counterclaim which is based on the breach of an implied warranty of merchantability of the carpeting and draperies. Section 672.314 of the Florida Statutes makes every seller of goods who is a merchant with respect to such goods, an implied warrantor that the goods are merchantable unless excluded or modified. Chapter 672.314(2) defines the term “merchantability” and states that it includes an implied warranty that the goods are fit to use for their normal services or acceptable in the trade and are of fair average quality....

...Fla.Stat. § 672.607(3)(a). Considering the foregoing, it is evident that the Vincents have failed to establish their right to recovery. First, the Vin-cents failed to establish that the carpeting and draperies were not merchantable within the meaning of § 672.314 of the Florida Statutes....

...However, the Court in Carlson specifically reserved judgment on the issue of common law breach of implied warranty pending clarification by the Supreme Court of Florida in Kramer, supra . Carlson at 1077. Instead, the Carlson Court decided that the plaintiff could maintain his action pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 672.314, which extends the seller's warranty to "any natural person who is a guest in his home or who is an employee, servant or agent of his buyer if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be affected by the goods." In th...

...§ 1332 in that there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Count I of the Amended Complaint is an action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, pursuant to Section 672.314, Florida Statutes; Count II is an action for implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, pursuant to Section 672.315, Florida Statutes; Count VII is a common-law action for negligence; and Count IX is an action for breach of good faith obligation, pursuant to Section 671.203, Florida Statutes....

...If the seed he purchases has a reasonable potential for a successful yield, whether it does so or not is dependent on the myriad choices he has made. Merchantability The plaintiff's cause of action for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, raised in Count I of the Complaint, is based on Section 672.314(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes, which states in part: (1) Unless excluded or modified (s....

...As discussed, the experiences of other farmers as well as the test plantings conducted by Dr. Barnett and FCES demonstrate Coker 747 was fit for the ordinary purpose of growing wheat with the potential for an economic yield. The Court finds the Coker 747 purchased by the plaintiff merchantable as defined by Section 672.314(2)(c), Florida Statutes....

...n in Florida in determining that a seed dealer could prudently sell Coker 747. In light of the testimony and the previously discussed statistic of the FCES published in the '81 Agronomy Facts, the Court finds the Coker 747 merchantable as defined by Section 672.314(2)(a), Florida Statutes....

...The Debtor contends that the machine in question was not merchantable because it failed to produce finished product at the rate of 300 TPH as quoted. To be merchantable, the goods must be fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used. Fla. Stat. § 672.314 ; Pennington Grain and Seed, Inc....

...and the concept of implied warranty of fitness for the intended purpose. It is unclear whether the legislature intended to use these two concepts interchangeably. The Statute defines the concept of merchantability in the following manner: Fla. Stat. § 672.314 (2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as: (a) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (c) Are fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used; and.......

...Sperry Rand Corp. v. Industrial Supply Corp., 337 F.2d 363, 368 (5th Cir.1964) (Florida law); Carter v. Hector Supply Co., 128 So.2d 390, 391 (Fla.1961); 41 Fla.Jur.2d Products Liability §§ 6, 21 (1983). The Florida UCC implied warranty statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.314, provides that “a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” Section 672.106 defines a “contract for sale” as “including]...

...transmission had to be replaced which cost in excess of $5,500.00. The court below found that the defect was "latent," and set off the repair cost against the purchase price. We begin our analysis of the case with the relevant statutory provisions. Section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: Unless excluded or modified, a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind......