CopyCited 60 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2009 A.M.C. 2652, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16604, 2009 WL 2146388
...§
672.719 ("Consequential
damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is
unconscionable."). Moreover, "[c]onsequential damages resulting from the seller's
breach include . . . (b) Injury to person or property proximately resulting from any
breach of warranty." Fla. Stat. §
672.715(2)....
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
...“reasonably certain” that are widely used terms of art in Florida law, and the short and
straightforward denial of all profits that have not accumulated, we hold that this was a legal
conclusion of the trial court.
22
S TAT. § 672.715(2)....
...im that it lost profits from
the resale of Microsoft software it contracted for when Wetmore repudiated the
three contracts.
Florida’s UCC law allows HGI to recover for any incidental9 damages and
consequential damages. See F LA. S TAT. § 672.715....
...Consequential damages are
awardable for “[a]ny 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.” F LA. S TAT. §
672.715(2)(a). Lost profits typically fall under the category of consequential
damages and we have applied §
672.715 to similar lost profit claims. See Nyquist
v. Randall,
819 F.2d 1014, 1017 (11th Cir. 1987). In Nyquist we interpreted §
672.715(2) to mean
that (1) “consequential damages” are those damages “resulting from general
or particular needs” of the purchaser, (2) such damages are not recoverable
unless “the seller at the time of contractin...
...Wetmore, on the other hand, should focus on evidence of HGI’s ability to
cover and mitigate damages, if any. In order to collect lost profits, HGI’s failure to
cover the breach must have been reasonable under the circumstances. According
to § 672.715 (2)(a), we must limit HGI’s lost profits recovery unless it could not
reasonably have prevented the loss by cover or otherwise....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 3 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1823, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7774
...d leases. Plaintiffs’ economic expert testified that that difference was $62,-902.96. 7 Defendants contended that this *1017 loss constituted “consequential damages” and thus was not recoverable in the absence of “cover.” See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.715(2)(a) (West 1966)....
...The jury awarded plaintiffs a verdict of $62,000. 8 II We first consider Randall’s contention that damages measured by “lost profits,” such as those in the instant case, are “consequential damages” calling the “cover” provision of Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.715(2)(a)....
...rom 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....
...In denying recovery, the court stated that the loss "would not have flowed naturally from the breach of this contract in the great multitude of such cases occurring under ordinary circumstances. . . ." Id. at 151. Such damages are properly covered by section 672.715, which states that "consequential damages ......
...the beginning that the transaction was three sided-that the only purpose for which the Nyquists purchased the cattle was for lease to Melear. However, this is not a ground for holding, as the district court did, that the damages were not governed by § 672.715....
...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 whi...
...t have the wherewithal to purchase additional cattle. Mr. *1019 Nyquist testified, without contradiction, that “At that time after we had paid for the cows I didn’t have the cash to purchase any more cows.” Record, Vol. 4 at 101. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.715 precludes recovery of consequential damages only where the loss could “reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise.” (emphasis added)....
...643 (1971) (buyer’s failure to cover did not preclude consequential damages where his financial condition prevented him from purchasing a substitute item). Additionally, plaintiffs did attempt to mitigate their loss by entering a revised lease with Melear. Section 672.715 specifically refers to losses that could not be avoided “by cover or otherwise." (emphasis added)....
...ommercial 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....
...damages were not recoverable. The jury apparently accepted the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert as to the economic loss. 8 . Berry was absolved from liability because the jury found that he disclosed that he was acting as an agent for Randall. 9 . 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...
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 365476
...Therefore, we determine that the trial court erred in denying Griffin's motion for a directed verdict on the revocation of acceptance count. Because Smith's claim for revocation of acceptance was not proved, he is not entitled to an award of consequential damages under section 672.715(2)(a), Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...the goods, etc., UCC 2.711; yet, only one remedy is permitted him in the event he suffers personal injuries, and it is limited to consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach which are "proximately resulting from any breach of warranty." Section 672.715(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979) (UCC 2.715(2)(b))....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 46 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 77, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7809, 2001 WL 673454
...672.314 (implied warranty of merchantability) and UCC § 2-315, Fla. Stat.
672.315 (implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose). The damages available for Premix's breach of warranty claims are those provided for by the UCC, including consequential damages pursuant to UCC § 2-715, Fla. Stat. §
672.715....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4094, 1992 WL 68968
...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. Stat. (1989). Additionally, under section
672.715, Florida Statutes (1989), the buyer can recover both incidental and consequential damages when these implied warranties are read into the contract....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 93 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 40, 88 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 41, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150398, 2015 WL 6750813
incident to the delay or other- breach.” Fla. Stat. §
672.715(1). Armadillo alleges that it is entitled to the
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 56, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15413
...Section
672.714(2), Fla. Stat. (1977). Additionally, appellee was entitled to incidental and consequential damages. Section
672.714(3), Fla. Stat. *321 (1977). Incidental damages include "... any ... reasonable expense incident to the ... breach." Section
672.715(1), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 93682
...denied,
613 So.2d 4 (Fla.1992). We determined that the two varying provisions canceled each other, and that the remaining contract implied statutory warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability. Having so decided, we added: "under section
672.715, Florida Statutes (1989), the buyer can recover both incidental and consequential damages when these implied warranties are read into the contract."
600 So.2d at 472....
...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....
...ular 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; and (b) injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty." § 672.715(2), Fla.Stat....
...fit into the UCC's provision regarding "any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know." The claimed loss clearly would not constitute "incidental" damages under section 672.715(1). Equally, it is not "injury to person or property proximately resulting from [the] breach of warranty" permitted by section 672.715(2)(b), for there is no possible claim here for injury to person or property....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...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.
672.715)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 64 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 939, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 20245, 2007 WL 4462984
...These "include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions in connection with effecting cover and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach." § 672.715(1)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 24165
...e boat's defects, thereby impeding its sale. Section
672.608(3), Florida Statutes (1985) provides that "[a] buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them." Under the remedy provision section
672.715(1) Bair is entitled to recover incidental damages which "include expenses reasonably incurred in ......
...es entered into the contract of sale, that Bair intended to borrow the amount to finance the purchase. Schatz Distributing Co. v. Olivetti Corp. of America, 7 Kan. App. 2d 676, 647 P.2d 820 (1982) (applying the same U.C.C. provision as adopted under section 672.715(2), Florida Statutes (1985) [3] )....
...It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it. [2] The court's decision in Ford Motor,
671 F.2d at 1117, was grounded upon section 85-2-608, Arkansas Statutes Annotated, which contains language identical to that of section
672.608. [3] Pursuant to section
672.715(2), Florida Statutes (1985), consequential damages 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 p...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2013 WL 7738172
...trol’s counterclaims. 8 The Court disagrees. NPI has failed to identify and address the elements of Natrol’s six distinct counterclaims. Rather, NPI has conflated those claims, arguing *1316 only that recovery is precluded under Florida Statutes § 672.715 (defining consequential damages), the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in HGI Assocs., Inc....
...Indeed, each of those principles is either inapplicable or relates to the factual issue of calculating damages. First, “[questions regarding the reasonableness and quantification of damages are generally issues of fact.” See Exim Brickell LLC v. PDVSA Servs. Inc., 516 Fed.Appx. 742, 759 (11th Cir.2013) (citing Fla. Stat. § 672.715 )....
...Count IV for Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose; Count V for Breach of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; and Count VI for Civil Remedies for Violations of Lanham Act. [DE 47 ¶¶ 27-69], . Florida Statutes § 672.715 defines "consequential damages" under Florida law, providing, in relevant part, as follows: (2) Consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach include: (a) Any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of...
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
...ller." Section
672.712(2) provides the measure of damages: The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between 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....
...ges for non-delivery or 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 any consequential damages provided in this chapter (§
672.715), but 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. Both sections provide the opportunity to seek consequential and incidental damages under §
672.715. Section
672.715(2) defines consequential damages as "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 otherw...
...Section
672.712(2) provides that the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the cover price, plus incidentals and consequentials. In order to recover consequential damages at all, Mayfair must show that the losses could not have been reasonably covered. Section
672.715(2)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1413, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2513, 1988 WL 59436
...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” and “[ijnjury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.” § 672.715(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1427, 1993 WL 25619
...We agree with Gatsby that the circuit court’s reliance on these cases was misplaced. Gatsby’s counterclaim does not attempt to assert a separate tort claim, but instead seeks “consequential damages arising from respondent’s ... breach of contract and breach of warranty.” See section 672.715, Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 305719
...A buyer is entitled to incidental damages, which include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation, and care and custody of rightfully rejected goods, and consequential damages, which include any foreseeable and unavoidable loss resulting from the breach. § 672.715(1),(2), Fla....
...Moreover, appellee did not make a claim of lost sales or profits due to the system errors. Because appellee did not incur any additional expense, or suffer a loss, as a result of Mrs. Armstrong's efforts to get the system operating properly, appellee is not entitled to damages for Mrs. Armstrong's efforts. See § 672.715(1),(2), Fla....
