CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 1073
...Design Time refused to accept delivery. Monco eventually sold the machine to another buyer. In its complaint, Monco sued for the total purchase price less the deposit. The trial court awarded damages of $21,255 plus interest of $28,025.08. Design Time contends that under section 672.709, Florida Statutes, Monco was clearly not entitled to recover the contract price....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1195, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2803, 1989 WL 49924
...urbine and not on an account stated. An action to recover the price of goods falls within the purview of Article Two of the U.C.C. To assert a basis for recovery, Cosgrove's complaint would have had to allege the existence of conditions expressed in section 672.709, Florida Statutes (1985); [1] however, the record fails to *18 demonstrate an additional sale....
..., would not establish liability. Recreation Corp. of America v. Jack Drury & Assoc., Inc.,
235 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Braun v. Noel,
188 So.2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Similarly, if this action were for the purchase price under the U.C.C., see §
672.709, Fla....
...Form 1.935 (complaint for goods sold). While it may be a matter of semantics, the trial court's record basis for the amount awarded to Cosgrove was the admittedly unpaid invoice amount, which would have been correct if reduced by a setoff in favor of appellant. NOTES [1] Section 672.709, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida | 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 227, 54 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 442, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 970, 44 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 274, 2005 WL 1308898
...T & M argues that its manufacture of the specialty goods for MPS was sufficient to constitute new value under § 547(c)(4) even though these goods were never delivered to MPS. T & M bases its argument on Section 2-709 of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") as adopted by Florida. See Fla. Stat. § 672.709 (2000)....
...r the goods it ordered regardless of whether or not such goods were delivered. However, T & M's reliance on § 2-709 and the holding of Royal Jones & Assocs., Inc. v. First Thermal Systems, Inc.,
566 So.2d 853 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(applying Fla. Stat. §
672.709 in a specialty goods contract setting)as a basis for its affirmative defense is misplaced....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 126332
...Royal Jones & Associates, Inc., appeals from a final judgment of the lower court finding that it breached a contract with First Thermal Systems, Inc., and awarding damages to First Thermal Systems, Inc., in the amount of the contract price pursuant to section 672.709, Florida Statutes (1987)....
...were specially manufactured for Royal Jones and were not suitable for sale in the ordinary course of First Thermal's business. Concluding that mitigation of damages was not a viable defense, the court entered judgment for First Thermal, pursuant to section 672.709, awarding First Thermal the contract price of $64,350, interest to the date of trial in the amount of $8,630.56, and attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $3,528.07. Section 672.709(1)(b) provides that when the buyer fails to pay the price for goods as it becomes due, the seller may recover, together with incidental damages, the price "[o]f goods identified to the contract if the seller is unable after reasonable...
...o resell them at a reasonable price or the circumstances reasonably indicate that such effort will be unavailing." Royal Jones contends that the lower court erred in awarding First Thermal the full contract price as damages for the tanks pursuant to section 672.709, because there was no evidence presented at trial that either First Thermal was unable to resell the tanks after making a reasonable effort to do so, or that the circumstances reasonably indicated that such effort would be unavailing....
...In reply, First Thermal contends that there was uncontroverted testimony at trial that the tanks were specially manufactured for *855 Royal Jones and that any efforts at resale would have been unavailing. While there are no Florida appellate decisions interpreting section 672.709 that would be applicable to these circumstances, cases from other jurisdictions support the lower court's decision to award First Thermal the full contract price....
...t value beyond the salvage value claimed by First Thermal. See FMI, Inc.; Tracor, Inc. However, Royal Jones presented no evidence to the contrary at trial, and the lower court did not err in awarding First Thermal the full contract price pursuant to section 672.709....
...et-off and return of the turbine.
546 So.2d at 17-18. The court stated that "to permit [the seller] to retain both the turbine and the purchase price would constitute an impermissible double recovery."
546 So.2d at 17-18. First Thermal contends that section
672.709(2) permits it to hold the tanks prior to collecting on the judgment. Section
672.709(2) provides that: *856 [w]here the seller sues for the price he must hold for the buyer any goods which have been identified to the contract and are still in his control except that if resale becomes possible he may resell them at any time prior to collection of the judgment. The net proceeds of any such resale must be credited to the buyer and payment of the judgment entitles him to any goods not resold. Section
672.709(2) permits First Thermal to hold the tanks for Royal Jones's credit prior to collection of the judgment and requires First Thermal to credit Royal Jones with the net proceeds of any resale of the tanks made prior to collection on the...
...upon payment. Consequently, there is no impermissible double recovery. The Page Avjet decision is not applicable to these circumstances. Finding no error in the trial court's ruling, the judgment is AFFIRMED. BOOTH and SMITH, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 672.709 is the same as section 2-709 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
