Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 672.209 (2025)
Modification, rescission, and waiver.
✓ 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
672.209 Modification, rescission, and waiver.—
(1) An agreement modifying a contract within this chapter needs no consideration to be binding.
(2) A signed agreement which excludes modification or rescission except by a signed writing or other signed record cannot be otherwise modified or rescinded, but except as between merchants such a requirement on a form supplied by the merchant must be separately signed by the other party.
(3) The requirements of the statute of frauds section of this chapter (s. 672.201) must be satisfied if the contract as modified is within its provisions.
(4) Although an attempt at modification or rescission does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (2) or (3) it can operate as a waiver.
(5) A party who has made a waiver affecting an executory portion of the contract may retract the waiver by reasonable notification received by the other party that strict performance will be required of any term waived, unless the retraction would be unjust in view of a material change of position in reliance on the waiver.
Note.—s. 2-209, U.C.C.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Linear Corp. v. Stand. Hardware Co., 423 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Linear Corp. v. Stand. Hardware Co., 423 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Further, they argue that the evidence of an agreement to repurchase subsequent to the written agreement is without effect because the written agreement specified that any modification had to be in writing and signed by the parties, and that this is in accord with Section…”
Coral Reef Drive Land Dev., LLC v. Duke Realty Ltd. P'ship, 45 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). “See § 672.209, Fla. Stat. (2009). The rule has been extended to other contracts as well by statute in a number of states.”
Tingley Sys., Inc. v. Healthlink, Inc., 509 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (M.D. Fla. 2007). “See Fla. Stat. § 672.209 (a). 5 . Under the U.”
La Rosa v. Fortier, 492 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). “See § 672.209(3), Fla. Stat. (1983). The final matter for our consideration is whether the statute of frauds is rendered inapplicable because the oral modification was in the nature of a settlement agreement.”
Smith v. Richardson, 709 S.W.2d 529 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). “This is true under Florida law, where the purported rescission took place (Fla.Stat. § 672.209 (1969), formerly § 672.”
Whisenhunt v. Ameracat Inc. (S.D. Ala. 2024). “Fla. Stat. § 672.209 (1). D. Plaintiffs’ Fraud in the Inducement Challenge is for the Arbitrator, Not the Court “Generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements without contravening § 2 .”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Wells, 27 Fla. Supp. 2d 99 (Fla. Polk Cty. Ct. 1988). “See § 672.209(2), Fla. Stat. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff takes nothing by this suit and Defendants shall go hence without day.”
Benasil Corp. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 426 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). “See § 672.209, Fla.Stat. (1981). Reversed and remanded.”
Billera v. Custom Laminating Window Prods., Inc., 11 Fla. Supp. 2d 120 (Fla. Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 1985). “Section 672.209(1), F.S. (1983). No new time limit for delivery was specified as of June 30.”
— 672.209(1) — 1 case
Billera v. Custom Laminating Window Prods., Inc., 11 Fla. Supp. 2d 120 (Fla. Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 1985). “Section 672.209(1), F.S. (1983). No new time limit for delivery was specified as of June 30.”
— 672.209(2) — 2 cases
Linear Corp. v. Stand. Hardware Co., 423 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Further, they argue that the evidence of an agreement to repurchase subsequent to the written agreement is without effect because the written agreement specified that any modification had to be in writing and signed by the parties, and that this is in accord with Section…”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Wells, 27 Fla. Supp. 2d 99 (Fla. Polk Cty. Ct. 1988). “See § 672.209(2), Fla. Stat. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff takes nothing by this suit and Defendants shall go hence without day.”
— 672.209(3) — 1 case
La Rosa v. Fortier, 492 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). “See § 672.209(3), Fla. Stat. (1983). The final matter for our consideration is whether the statute of frauds is rendered inapplicable because the oral modification was in the nature of a settlement agreement.”
— 672.209(4) — 1 case
Linear Corp. v. Stand. Hardware Co., 423 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Further, they argue that the evidence of an agreement to repurchase subsequent to the written agreement is without effect because the written agreement specified that any modification had to be in writing and signed by the parties, and that this is in accord with Section…”
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.