Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 672.102 (2025)

Scope; certain security and other transactions excluded from this chapter.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

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

672.102 Scope; certain security and other transactions excluded from this chapter.—

(1) Unless the context otherwise requires, and except as provided in subsection (2), this chapter applies to transactions in goods and, in the case of a hybrid transaction:

(a) If the sale-of-goods aspects do not predominate, only those provisions of this chapter which relate primarily to the sale-of-goods aspects of the transaction apply, and those provisions that relate primarily to the transaction as a whole do not apply.

(b) If the sale-of-goods aspects predominate, this chapter applies to the transaction but does not preclude application in appropriate circumstances of other law to aspects of the transaction which do not relate to the sale of goods.

(2) This chapter does not do the following:

(a) Apply to a transaction that, even though in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale, operates only to create a security interest.

(b) Impair or repeal a statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers, or other specified classes of buyers.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 40, ch. 2025-92.

Note.—s. 2-102, U.C.C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Sellers v. Frank Griffin AMC Jeep, Inc., 526 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sellers v. Frank Griffin AMC Jeep, Inc., 526 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). · cites it 7× “" Section 672.102, Florida Statutes. *152 The record before us contains a document, identified in the affidavit of Franklin Griffin as president of the dealership, which bears the title "Retail Buyer's Order" and the heading "FRANK GRIFFIN AMC JEEP RENAULT.”

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Galaxis USA, Ltd., 222 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (M.D. Fla. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 672.102 (2001). Where a sales contract contains several open terms, the contract does not necessarily fail for indefiniteness, because such open terms may be supplemented by the UCC’s “gap-filler” provisions.”

Suntogs of Miami, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 433 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 672.102, Fla. Stat. *584 (1975). The Code provides: "[W]hen a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties.”

Excess Risk Underwriters, Inc. v. Lafayette Life Ins., 328 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2004). · cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 672.102 (2004) (stating that the UCC's Article 2 only applies to "transactions in goods”).”

Validsa, Inc. v. PDVSA Servs. Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (S.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 672.102 . Specifically, Plaintiff cites to Fla.”

Armadillo Distrib. Enter., Inc. v. Hai Yun Musical Instruments Manufacture Co., 142 F. Supp. 3d 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2015). “Stat, § 672.102 (defining the scope of Florida’s U.”

Allied Shelving & Equip., Inc. v. Nat'l Deli, LLC, 154 So. 3d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). · cites it 2× “1 Article II of the UCC applies only to transactions in goods, see § 672.102, Fla. Stat. (2011); it does not apply to contracts for services, which are governed by the common law.”

Gen. Tool Indus., Inc. v. Premier Mach., Inc., 790 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 672.102, Fla. Stat. (2000) (“[Chapter 672, Florida Statutes (2000)] applies to transactions in goods; .”

Sys. Unlimited, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 228 F. App'x 854 (11th Cir. 2007). “Code § 2102; Fla. Stat. § 672.102 . The sale of intellectual property, which is what is involved here, is not a transaction in goods.”

Cent. Fla. Antenna Serv. v. Crabtree, 503 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). “[6] §§ 672.102, 672.206, 672.201(1), Fla. Stat.”

Capital Assocs., Inc. v. Hudgens, 455 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). · cites it 3× “Section 672.102, Florida Statutes (1983), provides that "[u]nless the context otherwise requires, this chapter applies to transactions in goods.”

Birwelco-Montenay, Inc. v. Infilco Degremont, Inc., 827 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). · cites it 4× “The UCC applies to transactions in goods, § 672.102, Fla. Stat. (1993), but not services.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— 672.102(1) — 1 case

James Gorfin v. Woodside Credit, LLC (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).

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.