672.204
Formation in general.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
672.204 Formation in general.—
(1) A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract.
(2) An agreement sufficient to constitute a contract for sale may be found even though the moment of its making is undetermined.
(3) Even though one or more terms are left open a contract for sale does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy.
History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254.
Note.—s. 2-204, U.C.C.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: Offices Togolais Des Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc.
Offices Togolais Des Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc. (1999)
“The parties have not cited, and the court has not located, any case construing Florida law on the issue of whether prejudgment interest is available in a breach of contract action arising under Florida’s gap-filling statutes, Fla.Stat. §§ 672.204(3), 672.305 where the parties do…”
Stephen Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc. (2018)
“Somewhat more specifically, courts applying Florida law have clarified (1) that "[a] vendor, as master of the offer," is free to "invite acceptance by conduct" and in so doing to "propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance," and (2) that a consumer…”
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc. (2009)
“” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”
David v. Richman (1990)
“Here, the parties clearly intended to form some type of agreement when they executed the documents in question, and there is a highly certain basis for making an award of attorney's fees. The parties knew or should have known that the prevailing-party clause was in the documents.”
Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc. (2017)
“” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Pak China Group Co. (2012)
“” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”
Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Anadisk LLC (2010)
“” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”
In re Miami Metals I, Inc. (2019)
“" Fla. Stat. Ann. § 672.204 (1) ; N.Y. U.C.”
Overseas Private Investment Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County (1993)
“Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.204(3). Dade County’s argument concerning the absence of essential terms is meritless.”
TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. SND Cellular, Inc. (2010)
“” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”
Zell v. Cobb (1990)
“Similarly, the Uniform Commercial Code, section 672.204, Florida Statutes (1985), governing the formation of contracts for sales [4] provides in pertinent part: (3) Even though one or more terms are left open a contract for sale does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties…”
Gulf Power Co. v. Coalsales II, L.L.C. (2009)
“01, established the price of other sources of coal as the price of the blend of Source A and Source B coal. However, the court need not find that the CSA provided a price for other sources of coal, as the law plainly allows parties to a contract to decide on open terms,…”
— 672.204(1) — 1 case
— 672.204(3) — 4 cases
Offices Togolais Des Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc. (1999)
“The parties have not cited, and the court has not located, any case construing Florida law on the issue of whether prejudgment interest is available in a breach of contract action arising under Florida’s gap-filling statutes, Fla.Stat. §§ 672.204(3), 672.305 where the parties do…”
David v. Richman (1990)
“Here, the parties clearly intended to form some type of agreement when they executed the documents in question, and there is a highly certain basis for making an award of attorney's fees. The parties knew or should have known that the prevailing-party clause was in the documents.”
Overseas Private Investment Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County (1993)
“Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.204(3). Dade County’s argument concerning the absence of essential terms is meritless.”
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.