Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 671.207 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 671.207 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 671.207 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 671.207

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS
Chapter 671
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: GENERAL PROVISIONS
View Entire Chapter
671.207 Performance or acceptance under reservation of rights.
(1) A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.
History.s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 4, ch. 92-82.
Note.s. 1-207, U.C.C.

F.S. 671.207 on Google Scholar

F.S. 671.207 on CourtListener

Amendments to 671.207


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 671.207

Total Results: 4  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Eder v. Yvette B. Gervey Interiors, Inc., 407 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Cited 21 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 37 A.L.R. 4th 353

...rights, cash the check and thereafter successfully rely on that reservation of rights to defeat an express, written condition inscribed on the check by the debtor that acceptance constitutes payment in full. Put another way, the question is whether Section 671.207, Florida Statutes (1979), (section 1-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code), applies to final payment for goods or services....
...In Yelen, the restrictive endorsement: "Received as partial agreement without prejudice, under protest, with full exclusive reservation of rights" was held insufficient to defeat the payor's clear expressed intention that acceptance of the check constituted a compromise and settlement. Section 671.207 Florida Statutes (1979) was not discussed....
...The trial court denied the landscaper further payment because he had failed to notify the drawer of his reservation of rights prior to negotiating the check. The Second District reversed, holding that there was adequate reservation of rights under Section 671.207 and that to require prior notification would "eviscerate the purpose of the section, ..." The conflicting policies represented by these disparate results are discussed by White and Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 13-21 (2d ed....
Copy

Hannah v. James A. Ryder Corp., 380 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Cited 13 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...[5] Because of our holding that, under established principles, the issue of whether an accord and satisfaction arose must be submitted to a jury, we deem it inappropriate to consider whether we agree with the second district's holding in Miller v. Jung, 361 So.2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) that § 1-207 of the U.C.C., § 671.207, Fla....
Copy

Burke Co. v. Hilton Dev. Co., 802 F. Supp. 434 (N.D. Fla. 1992).

Cited 12 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 6, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20965, 1992 WL 250427

...nd final settlement of all sums owed to the payee by the payor on the Holiday Inn Job 57" constituted a release by the plaintiff of any rights it may have had under the parties' prior lease agreement. The plaintiff counters by arguing that FLA.STAT. § 671.207 abrogates the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction and, instead, provides a mechanism whereby a creditor can negotiate a debtor's full payment check and, at the same time, preserve its right to payment under the former agreement. [1] The dispositive question for consideration by this Court is whether Section 671.207 supersedes the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction....
...has been effected is determined by the law of contract. Whether or not Section 3-311 applies, Section 1-207 has no application to an accord and satisfaction. Based on the foregoing, there can be no doubt but that Section 1-207, or more appropriately Section 671.207, does not supersede the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction....
...This finding is supported by the recent amendments to the UCC as well as by numerous court decisions, including several from Florida. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED. 2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. ORDERED. NOTES [1] Section 671.207 is Florida's counterpart to Section 1-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code....
Copy

Miller v. Jung, 361 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1085

...and negotiated the check. The trial court ruled that receipt of a check so conditioned on its face required the payee to notify the drawer of the check that his acceptance was under protest or reservation of rights prior to negotiation. We hold that Section 671.207, Florida Statutes (1977) precludes the conclusion reached by the trial court....
...A party who with explicit reservation of rights ... assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest" or the like are sufficient. Section 671.207 is a part of the Uniform Commercial Code....
...[Emphasis supplied.] To require actual notification prior to negotiation would eviscerate the purpose of the section, which should allow a party to negotiate checks so conditioned on their face without gambling with his right to demand the balance due at a later time. Section 671.207, Florida Statutes (1977) in this instance frees up or minimizes impediments to the flow of commercial paper while reserving the rights of the immediate parties....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.