672.105
Definitions: transferability; “goods”; “future” goods; “lot”; “commercial unit.”
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
672.105 Definitions: transferability; “goods”; “future” goods; “lot”; “commercial unit.”—
(1) “Goods” means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action. “Goods” also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (s. 672.107).
(2) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass. Goods which are not both existing and identified are “future” goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell.
(3) There may be a sale of a part interest in existing identified goods.
(4) An undivided share in an identified bulk of fungible goods is sufficiently identified to be sold although the quantity of the bulk is not determined. Any agreed proportion of such a bulk or any quantity thereof agreed upon by number, weight or other measure may to the extent of the seller’s interest in the bulk be sold to the buyer who then becomes an owner in common.
(5) “Lot” means a parcel or a single article which is the subject matter of a separate sale or delivery, whether or not it is sufficient to perform the contract.
(6) “Commercial unit” means such a unit of goods as by commercial usage is a single whole for purposes of sale and division of which materially impairs its character or value on the market or in use. A commercial unit may be a single article (as a machine) or a set of articles (as a suite of furniture or an assortment of sizes) or a quantity (as a bale, gross, or carload) or any other unit treated in use or in the relevant market as a single whole.
History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254.
Note.—s. 2-105, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 678.54.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: US Fid. & Guar. Co. v. N. Am. Steel Corp.
US Fid. & Guar. Co. v. N. Am. Steel Corp. (1976)
“NASCO contends that the fabricated pipes are goods defined in Fla.Stat § 672.105 and that under Fla. Stat.”
Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. v. Hai Yun Musical Instruments Manufacture Co. (2015)
“); Fla. Stat. § 672.105 (1) (defining goods to include specially-manufactured products).”
Cardozo v. True (1977)
“Section 672.105, Florida Statutes. Cf. Lake Wales Publishing Co.”
Burton v. Artery Company (1977)
“The court said, “Since the predominant] nature of the transaction was the furnishing of a product rather than services, we believe that the fabricated pipe could properly be characterized as goods within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 672.105 .”); Berry v. G. D. Searle & Co.”
Zell v. Cobb (1990)
“However, the comments to section 672.105, Florida Statutes, the section that defines "goods" states: "`Investment securities' are expressly excluded from coverage of this Article.”
Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC (2015)
“” § 672.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2011). The term “services,” conversely, is not defined in the UCC, but generally refers to some sort of manual labor or personal utility rather than a physical object that has been sold or purchased.”
AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust ex rel. Welt v. Oracle USA, Inc. (In re All American Semiconductor, Inc.) (2013)
“” Fla. Stat. § 672.105 (1). Often contracts are both for goods and services.”
Mahler v. Allied Marine (1987)
“§ 672.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1985); Puamier v.”
Kit Car World, Inc. v. Skolnick (1993)
“Section 672.105(2), Florida Statutes (1991), states that goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass.”
Equico Lessors, Inc. v. Maruka Machinery Corp. of America (1988)
“See § 672.105(2), Fla. Stat. (1979). As the appellant argues in its brief: Thus, in the time period prior to March 12, 1980 Mercury contracted to sell the machine to Nova, Nova contracted to sell the machine to Servico, and Servico contracted to assign the sale to Equico.”
Wolf Ridge Plastics v. Jacksonville Elec. (1980)
“2nd DCA 1976), holding that fabricated pipe could properly be characterized as "goods" within the meaning of the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 672.105. [4] Letter from Au's attorney to Wolf Ridge's attorney, dated December 7, 1977: "This letter will confirm our telephone…”
Seiler v. Hadley (In Re GIC Government Securities) (1986)
“Third, § 546(c) applies only to “goods” and § 2-105(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted by Florida Statute § 672.105(1), expressly excludes investment securities such as the one in issue here from the definition of goods.”
— 672.105(1) — 7 cases
Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC (2015)
“” § 672.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2011). The term “services,” conversely, is not defined in the UCC, but generally refers to some sort of manual labor or personal utility rather than a physical object that has been sold or purchased.”
Mahler v. Allied Marine (1987)
“§ 672.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1985); Puamier v.”
Seiler v. Hadley (In Re GIC Government Securities) (1986)
“Third, § 546(c) applies only to “goods” and § 2-105(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted by Florida Statute § 672.105(1), expressly excludes investment securities such as the one in issue here from the definition of goods.”
Crawford v. Gold Kist, Inc. (1985)
— 672.105(2) — 2 cases
Kit Car World, Inc. v. Skolnick (1993)
“Section 672.105(2), Florida Statutes (1991), states that goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass.”
Equico Lessors, Inc. v. Maruka Machinery Corp. of America (1988)
“See § 672.105(2), Fla. Stat. (1979). As the appellant argues in its brief: Thus, in the time period prior to March 12, 1980 Mercury contracted to sell the machine to Nova, Nova contracted to sell the machine to Servico, and Servico contracted to assign the sale to Equico.”
— 672.105(3) — 1 case
La Rosa v. Fortier (1986)
— 672.105(6) — 1 case
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.