CopyCited 277 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3686484
...); misleading advertising (count II); Florida RICO-criminal racketeering (count III); breach of contract (count IV); unjust enrichment (count V); and declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the validity of the disclaimers in the Contract under section 482.227, Florida Statutes (count VI)....
...The Appellees' allegations against the Appellants on the FDUTPA damages claim may be summarized as follows: The various disclaimers in the Contract were not in conspicuous type on the face of the contract and improperly attempted to limit the termite protection guarantee, all in violation of section 482.227(2), Florida Statutes....
... The Appellants engaged in false and misleading advertising. The Appellants failed to inspect customers' homes and falsified the company records to indicate that inspections had been performed when they had not. The Appellants misused the word "guarantee" in the Contract in violation of section 482.227(1), Florida Statutes....
...We express no opinion on the validity of the various disclaimers in the Contract. [6] Mark Moller makes this point in The Rule of Law Problem, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y at 874. [7] Kris Cornett, Maria Garcia, and the Butlands executed their agreements with Orkin in 1991, 1992, and 1993 respectively. [8] Section 482.227 provides that any contract for the treatment of wood-destroying organisms must use the term "limited" with the term "guarantee" or "warranty," "[i]f the licensee promises only to provide additional treatment if infestation occurs duri...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1791705
...); misleading advertising (count II); Florida RICO-criminal racketeering (count III); breach of contract (count IV); unjust enrichment (count V); and declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the validity of the disclaimers in the Contract under section 482.227, Florida Statutes (count VI)....
...The Appellees' allegations against the Appellants on the FDUTPA claim may be summarized as follows: The various disclaimers in the Contract were not in conspicuous type on the face of the contract and improperly attempted to limit the termite protection guarantee, all in violation of section 482.227(2), Florida Statutes....
... The Appellants engaged in false and misleading advertising. The Appellants failed to inspect customers' homes and falsified the company records to indicate that inspections had been performed when they had not. The Appellants misused the word "guarantee" in the Contract in violation of section 482.227(1), Florida Statutes....
...We express no opinion on the validity of the various disclaimers in the Contract. [5] Mark Moller makes this point in The Rule of Law Problem, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y at 874. [6] Kris Cornett, Maria Garcia, and the Butlands executed their agreements with Orkin in 1991, 1992, and 1993 respectively. [7] Section 482.227 provides that any contract for the treatment of wood-destroying organisms must use the term "limited" with the term "guarantee" or "warranty," "[i]f the licensee promises only to provide additional treatment if infestation occurs duri...
CopyPublished | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 281, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1175
...and liability limitations which are printed on the back of the Agreements. However, a Florida Statute prevents Defendant from making this argument as it applies to those disclaimers. Relevant Florida Statute In 1982, the Florida legislature enacted § 482.227(2), Florida Statutes, to protect consumers from hidden disclaimers in pest control contracts....
...because the disclaimers in this case do not appear in conspicuous type, nor on the face of the Agreement and thus are unenforceable as a matter of law. Defendant has argued, however, that the statute is inapplicable to the subject Agreement because § 482.227(2) was not enacted until 1982, five years after the initial Agreement was signed, and because to find otherwise would impair an existing contractual obligation....
...The evidence is uncontroverted that Defendant offered to renew the Agreement each year conditioned on (i) the property receiving a favorable inspection, and (ii) receipt of payment. The Court notes that Defendant did in fact renew these guarantees. Defendant’s suggestion that § 482.227(2) is inapplicable is therefore without merit....
...in the area. Plaintiff argues that this clause is not a defense but rather a declaratory statement. This Court agrees thus find that this paragraph does not preclude Defendant’s liability in any way. In sum, this Court finds that Florida Statutes Section 482.227 prevents Defendant from arguing that its defenses found on the back of the Agreements absolve it from liability. This Court further finds that even if Florida Statutes 482.227 does not apply to the contractual disclaimers at issue, Defendant cannot repudiate liability based on those defenses for the reasons articulated above....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10506, 1991 WL 213258
...judgment for FIGA. We therefore reverse the final judgment entered pursuant to the order entered against Falcon, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. W. SHARP, J., and SAWAYA, T.D., Associate Judge, concur. . Section 482.227, Florida Statutes (1989), permits pest controllers to use the terms “guarantee” or "warranty" in contracts for the treatment of wood-destroying organisms....
