CopyCited 39 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 59 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1070, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 21427, 2005 WL 2428459
...at 682.
21
conjectural.8 However, the district court’s application of Florida law here was in
error.
This award of damages comes to us in a rather unique posture. A damage
award for breach of contract for the sale of goods is typically covered by section
672.713 of Florida’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), F LA.
S TAT. § 672.713....
...repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time
when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any
incidental and consequential damages . . . , but less expenses saved in consequence
of the seller’s breach.” F LA. S TAT. § 672.713(1); U.C.C....
...2d 913, 914 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1996) (per curiam); Kneale v. Jay Ben Inc.,
527 So. 2d 917, 918 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 1988); see also Hart v. Marbury,
90 So. 173, 175 (Fla. 1921). Here however,
the district court found that HGI failed to sufficiently plead section
672.713
“benefit of the bargain” damages and only pled lost profit damages under F LA.
8
On appeal, the parties argue whether the district court’s denial of future lost profits is a
finding of fact or a conclusion of law....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 65193
...f the bargain," 17 Fla.Jur.2d Damages § 28 (1980), which, specifically in the case of the nondelivery of contracted for goods, involves the difference between the contract price and the market price. Hart v. Marbury,
82 Fla. 317,
90 So. 173 (1921); §
672.713(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 484, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 2022, 1990 WL 138991
...Section
672.711(1) provides that: "where the seller fails to make delivery ... the buyer may cancel and: (a) `cover' and have damages under the next section as to all the goods affected whether or not they have been identified to the contract; or (b) recover damages for nondelivery as provided in this chapter (s.
672.713)." Section
672.712 provides for cover. Thus, a buyer complaining of non-delivery can proceed under either §§
672.712 or
672.713....
...ween the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (s.
672.715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach. Alternatively, a buyer may elect to proceed under §
672.713(1): "subject to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (§
672.723), the measure of damages for non-delivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer l...
...ut less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach." Essentially, both of these remedies involve the same computation, but under §
672.712, the cover price is conclusively determined to be the fair market price of the goods, whereas under §
672.713 the buyer has the burden of proving the market price....
...erwise." Applying these buyer's remedies to the case at bar, Mayfair's claim is without merit even if SAS breached the Prepaid Rent Agreement. First, Mayfair presented no evidence regarding market price whatsoever, so it cannot seek to recover under § 672.713....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5038, 2015 WL 1578739
...It is
well-established in Florida, and in virtually every state, that the measure of a
buyer’s damages for a breach of contract when the seller refuses to deliver a
product as agreed can include the difference between the market price of that
product and the price of the product as specified in the repudiated contract. §
672.713, Fla....
