Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Thermo-Air Service, Inc., 351 So.2d 351, 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). "The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted." Fla. Stat. § 672.714....

...s for non-delivery — Sections 672.712 and 672.713; (3) specific performance or replevin — Section 672.716; (4) rejection — Section 672.601; (5) revocation of acceptance — Section 672.608; and (6) damages for breach in regard to accepted goods — Section 672.714....

...Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable but limitation of damages where the loss is commercial is not. [6] See also: Ford Motor Co. v. Reid, 250 Ark. 176, 465 S.W.2d 80 (1971). [7] § 672.714, Fla. Stat. (1981), provides: 672.714 Buyer's damages for breach in regard to accepted goods....

...of the cattle to the agreement rather than “substantial” non-conformity. The district court adopted plaintiffs’ contentions that the damages resulting from the decreased lease payments were “direct” damages recoverable under Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.714(1) and denied defendant’s request for an instruction regarding cover....

...However, under the circumstances of this case, the buyers fulfilled that obligation and thus were not precluded from recovering their lost profits. A Plaintiffs strenuously contended, both in the district court and before this court, that the damages they sought were properly recoverable under Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.714(1) 10 , and thus they were not required by § 672.715(2)(a) to “cover.” However, § 672.714 gives a remedy for “damages for any non-conformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach....” The section plainly applies to so called “direct” damages....

...It is instead a factor specifically made relevant by that section in determining whether consequential damages are recoverable in a particular case. Plaintiffs seem to argue that, even if the damages here sought fall within the definition of consequential damages under § 672.715, they are also recoverable under § 672.714, because that section authorizes recovery of "damages for any non-conformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller's breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable." Because the defendants kn...

...a "sale-lease" transaction, plaintiffs argue, calculation of damages based on the different values of the leases is "reasonable," and since the remedy provisions of the Code are not mutually exclusive they are entitled to recover their damages under § 672.714. As we have already pointed out, the reduced lease payments simply are not "loss resulting in the ordinary course of events." Additionally, plaintiffs' broad interpretation of § 672.714 would render the cover obligation in § 672.-715 nugatory....

...12 Ill Finally, we come to Randall’s argument that the jury should have been instructed that there must have been a “substantial” non-conformity for the plaintiffs to be entitled to any recovery. 13 That argument *1020 need not detain us long. Section 672.714 expressly provides that a buyer who has accepted goods "may recover as damages for any non-conformity of tender....

...f a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him." 14 However, plaintiffs in this action did not seek to "revoke" their acceptance of the cattle. Rather, they sought damages for non-conformity as provided in §~ 672.714 and 672.715....

...Section 672.715(2) provides, in pertinent part: Consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach include: (a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; 10 .Section 672.714(1) provides: Where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification (§ 672.607(3)) he may recover as damages for any non-conformity of tender the loss resulting in the ordinary course of events from the seller’s breach as determined in any manner which is reasonable. Although we agree with the defendants that the lost profits in this case are consequential damages, we reject as wholly without merit the argument that § 672.714(1) is inapplicable to breaches of warranty such as the present case, merely because there is a separate "general rule” stated for such cases in § 672.714(2)....

Armadillo alleges that, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 672.714, it is entitled to direct damages in the amount

...This second report stated under clarity grade: `internally flawless', and under color grade: `E'. Plaintiff testified that after the second report was obtained, he notified defendant's agents of the discrepancy. This constitutes notice under Section 2-714 of the Uniform Commercial Code [Section 672.714, Florida Statutes]. "10. Plaintiff's damages are properly measured by difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted. Section 672.714(2), Florida Statutes....

...ate, and always was color grade "E", which was not the color grade it was warranted to be; thus a breach on the date of sale was established. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the judgment under review be and the same is hereby affirmed. See: Section 672.714, Florida Statutes (1971), the section under which this action was brought....

...See Section 672.607, Fla. Stat. (1977). With this done, appellee was entitled to the "difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted," with good title. Section 672.714(2), Fla. Stat. (1977). Additionally, appellee was entitled to incidental and consequential damages. Section 672.714(3), Fla....

...Seller argues that buyer's damages were too remote and speculative to go to the jury. Ordinarily, where the buyer has accepted non-conforming goods and sued for breach, as in this case, the buyer is entitled to general, incidental and consequential damages, which in a proper case may be an amalgam of some or all three. §§ 672.714 and 672.715, Fla.Stat. (1995); see also Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, 156 Eng.Rep. 145 (1854). Section 672.714(2) states that the measure of general damages is the difference between the value of the goods accepted and their value as warranted. Section 672.714(3) provides that incidental and consequential damages may be recovered "in a proper case." Consequential damages are defined in the Code to be: "[a]ny loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the selle...

...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. 672.315; F.S. 672.714 and F.S....

...ecial nor penal damages may be had except as specifically provided in this Act or by other rule of law. Thus, Alps is still able to recover some of its direct and incidental damages, although it is precluded from receiving consequential damages. See § 672.714-.715....

...LOST PROFITS Although our holding enforces the limitation of liability clause which barred lost profits, we alternatively hold it was also error to award Alps damages for lost profits because Alps failed to prove them with reasonable certainty. Florida law allows for the award of consequential damages. See §§ 672.714-715; Twyman v....

...tutes (1979), it was liable for the contract price. However, it notified appellant of the nonconforming use within a reasonable time after discovery according to the requirements of Section 672.607(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). Consequently, under Section 672.714, Florida Statutes (1979), it was entitled to damages for the nonconforming shipment which it could subtract from the contract price of the shipment pursuant to Section 672.717, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...that appellee's damages equaled the contract price. In failing to provide appellee with Coilzak, appellant breached an express warranty to appellee that the goods appellee was to receive would be Coilzak. § 672.313, Fla. Stat. (1979). That part of Section 672.714 which deals with damages for breach of warranty is subsection (2), and it reads as follows: (2) The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepte...

...Since the court gave appellant the right to retrieve the unused aluminum, appellant could not claim that appellee even had the benefit of scrap value. Therefore, appellee was entitled to damages of sixty per cent of the contract price or $1,841.40. It should be noted that in applying Section 672.714(2), we have used the value of the aluminum after it was sheared rather than the value of the aluminum at the time of its acceptance. However, the "special circumstances" of this case, namely the fact that it was necessary to shear the aluminum in order to determine that it was not Coilzak, mandates that result and makes it perfectly proper under Section 672.714....

...Appellee also proved that it incurred an expense of $200 in shearing all of the aluminum sheets before it realized the nonconforming use. The shearing costs applicable to the unusable portion of the shipment were $120 ($200 X 60%). Thus, appellee suffered incidental damages in that amount as permitted by Section 672.714(3)....

...mately sold to the plaintiff was stolen, he was nevertheless liable to the plaintiff for breach of the warranty of title. Ricklefs v. Clemens, 216 Kan. 128, 531 P.2d 94 (1975). The damages for breach of the implied warranty of title are set forth in Section 672.714(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1973)....

...-4-  Under Florida law, a claimant in an action for breach of warranty may recover damages for the diminished value of the warranted goods as well as incidental and consequential damages resulting from the breach. See § 672.714(2), (3), Fla....

...onsequential damages. The only question for us with respect to damages, then, is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the diminished-value damages that Mr. Doughty and Ms. Dziewiecien sought. With respect to that issue, section 672.714(2) provides as follows: The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would ha...

...We partially reverse for trial on the issue of damages alone on the ground that the appellee failed to demonstrate conclusively that it had not breached express or implied warranties as to the quality of the goods, thus affecting their value pursuant to Section 672.714(2), Florida Statutes (1983).