Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (2025)

Formation in general.

✓ 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

672.204 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., 62 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (M.D. Fla. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Offices Togolais Des Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (M.D. Fla. 1999). · cites it 4× “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 Bldg. Prods., Inc., 908 F.3d 675 (11th Cir. 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., 642 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 2× “” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”

David v. Richman, 568 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1990). · cites it 2× “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 Bldg. Prods., Inc., 275 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (M.D. Fla. 2017). · cites it 2× “” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Pak China Grp. Co., 843 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Anadisk LLC, 685 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2010). · cites it 2× “” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”

In re Miami Metals I, Inc., 603 B.R. 727 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Fla. Stat. Ann. § 672.204 (1) ; N.Y. U.C.”

Overseas Private Inv. Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 826 F. Supp. 1564 (S.D. Fla. 1993). · cites it 3× “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., 715 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (S.D. Fla. 2010). · cites it 2× “” Fla. Stat. § 672.204 (1) (adopting U.C.C.”

Zell v. Cobb, 566 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). · cites it 2× “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., 661 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (N.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 2× “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,…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— 672.204(1) — 1 case

T.T. Int'l Co., LTD v. BMP Int'l, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2022).

— 672.204(3) — 4 cases

Offices Togolais Des Phosphates v. Mulberry Phosphates, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (M.D. Fla. 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, 568 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 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 Inv. Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 826 F. Supp. 1564 (S.D. Fla. 1993). “Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.204(3). Dade County’s argument concerning the absence of essential terms is meritless.”

Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (M.D. Fla. 2007).

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.