672.101

Short title.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

672.101 Short title.—Chapter 672 shall be known and may be cited as the “Uniform Commercial Code—Sales.”

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254.

Note.—s. 2-101, U.C.C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1986–2020 · leading case: Coastal & Native Plant Specialties, Inc. v. Engineered Textile Products, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Coastal & Native Plant Specialties, Inc. v. Engineered Textile Products, Inc. (2001) flnd · cites it 2× “); Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 672.101 -.724 (West 1993 & Supp.”

Sellers v. Frank Griffin AMC Jeep, Inc. (1988) fladistctapp “102(1) that the code be "liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies" defined in subsection (2) as being "(a) To simplify, clarify and modernize the law *151 governing commercial transactions; (b) To permit the continued expansion of…”

Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. (2007) flmd “§§ 672.101-672.724, Fla. Stat. (2007). Under Florida law, “It is elementary that in order to recover on a claim for breach of contract the burden is upon the claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a contract, a breach thereof and damages flowing…”

Boyer v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2020) flsd · cites it 2× “Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs may not recover punitive damages, and that attorneys’ fees are not available for Count 2, Plaintiffs’ claim under the Florida Uniform Commercial Code (“Florida UCC”), Fla. Stat. § 672.101 , et seq. In response, Plaintiffs concede that…”

Bob Rigby, Inc. v. Eagle Crusher, Inc. (In re Bob Rigby, Inc.) (1986) flmb · cites it 2× “Considering these claims ad seri-atim, this Court is satisfied that the claim of the Debtor based on breach of an express warranty by Eagle has not been established with the requisite degree of proof and must be rejected for the following reasons: First, the transaction under…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.