672.306
Output, requirements, and exclusive dealings.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
672.306 Output, requirements, and exclusive dealings.—
(1) A term which measures the quantity by the output of the seller or the requirements of the buyer means such actual output or requirements as may occur in good faith, except that no quantity unreasonably disproportionate to any stated estimate or in the absence of a stated estimate to any normal or otherwise comparable prior output or requirements may be tendered or demanded.
(2) A lawful agreement by either the seller or the buyer for exclusive dealing in the kind of goods concerned imposes unless otherwise agreed an obligation by the seller to use best efforts to supply the goods and by the buyer to use best efforts to promote their sale.
History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254.
Note.—s. 2-306, U.C.C.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1976–2012 · leading case: Topp, Inc. v. Uniden American Corp.
Topp, Inc. v. Uniden American Corp. (2007)
“Topp argues that because the agreements dealt with a sale of goods, they are governed by Fla. Stat. § 672.306 , which provides, in relevant part, “[a] lawful agreement by either the seller or the buyer for exclusive dealing in the kind of goods concerned imposes unless otherwise…”
Pullam v. Hercules Inc. (1998)
“Such contracts are not deemed to be indefinite or lacking in "mutuality of obligation since, under this section, the party who will determine quantity is required to operate his plant or conduct his business in good faith and according to commercial standards of fair dealing in…”
C. A. Acquisition Newco, LLC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. (2012)
“”); Fla. Stat. § 672.306 (2) (adopting U.C.C.”
Kettles v. Charter Mortg. Co. (1976)
“To hold that any future services in an indefinite amount and duration constitute a "same direct contract" would destroy the orderly use of the mechanic's lien laws.”
Comm'r
“However, we do not make a finding or conclusion that this relationship was a supply or requirements contract.”
— 672.306(2) — 1 case
Pullam v. Hercules Inc. (1998)
“Such contracts are not deemed to be indefinite or lacking in "mutuality of obligation since, under this section, the party who will determine quantity is required to operate his plant or conduct his business in good faith and according to commercial standards of fair dealing in…”
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.