Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 672.314 (2025)

Implied warranty; merchantability; usage of trade.

✓ 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

672.314 Implied warranty; merchantability; usage of trade.—

(1) Unless excluded or modified (s. 672.316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.

(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as:

(a) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and

(b) In the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and

(d) Run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and

(e) Are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and

(f) Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

(3) Unless excluded or modified (s. 672.316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254.

Note.—s. 2-314, U.C.C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 83 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: RA Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

RA Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). · cites it 5× “, and Pine Island Farms Enterprises were not limitations-barred, and thus evidence relating to the other six assigned claims was improperly considered by the jury in calculating the amount of Jones' damages; and (3) there is no record support for the remittitur. We reverse for…”

Cardozo v. True, 342 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). · cites it 7× “), Section 672.314, Florida Statutes; that the second question is answered by the common law of implied warranties.”

Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp of Am., 849 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2017). “” Fla. Stat. § 672.314 . Thus, a seller can breach this implied warranty by doing nothing more than being a merchant of certain products and selling those products.”

Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2005). · cites it 2× “The insects were a latent condition that Albertson's could not discover because the insects were inside the sealed container.”

Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). · cites it 2× “The Restatement's standard should be compared to Section 672.314(3), Florida Statutes (1979) (UCC 2-314), requiring that in order for a product to be merchantable, it must be "fit for the ordinary purposes" for which it was intended.”

Royal Typewriter Co., a Div. of Litton Bus. Sys., Inc., a Corp. v. Xerographic Supplies Corp., a Corp., 719 F.2d 1092 (11th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “In order to be merchantable under Florida law, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.314, the RBC-I’s must have passed without objection in the trade under the contract description, be of fair average quality, and be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.”

Armadillo Distrib. Enter., Inc. v. Hai Yun Musical Instruments Manufacture Co., 142 F. Supp. 3d 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2015). · cites it 4× “” Fla. Stat. § 672.314 (1). In order for goods to be merchantable, the goods must be “fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,” among other requirements.”

McCormick Mach., Inc. v. Julian E. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 523 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). · cites it 5× “We conclude that Johnson is correct on the issue raised by its cross-appeal, and we determine that the disclaimer of warranties relied upon by McCormick and the trial court was insufficient to disclaim the implied warranty of "merchantability," under the Uniform Commercial Code,…”

Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Co., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (S.D. Fla. 2014). · cites it 2× “313, Florida Statutes); implied warranty of merchantability (Section 672.314, Florida Statutes); implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Section 672.”

Jovine v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 672.314 . A cause of action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability requires allegations that (1) the plaintiff was a foreseeable user of the product, (2) the product was used in the intended manner at the time of the injury, (3) the product was…”

Barnes v. the Kellogg Co., 846 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). · cites it 2× “The insects were a latent condition that Albertsons's could not discover because the insects were inside the sealed container. Although it played no active role in creating this condition, Albertson's, as the retailer, could be liable for such a box of cereal.”

Seitz v. Zac Smith & Co., Inc., 500 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). · cites it 3× “[2] Section 672.314, Florida Statutes (1981) provides an implied warranty of merchantability for goods sold by a merchant in kind.”

Show all 83 citing cases →

— 672.314(1) — 5 cases

Cardozo v. True, 342 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). “), Section 672.314, Florida Statutes; that the second question is answered by the common law of implied warranties.”

McCormick Mach., Inc. v. Julian E. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 523 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). “We conclude that Johnson is correct on the issue raised by its cross-appeal, and we determine that the disclaimer of warranties relied upon by McCormick and the trial court was insufficient to disclaim the implied warranty of "merchantability," under the Uniform Commercial Code,…”

Technical Packaging, Inc. v. Hanchett, 992 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Czarnecki v. Roller, 726 F. Supp. 832 (S.D. Fla. 1989).

Davis Indus. Sales, Inc. v. Workman Constr. Co., 856 S.W.2d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

— 672.314(2) — 3 cases

Royal Typewriter Co., a Div. of Litton Bus. Sys., Inc., a Corp. v. Xerographic Supplies Corp., a Corp., 719 F.2d 1092 (11th Cir. 1983). “In order to be merchantable under Florida law, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.314, the RBC-I’s must have passed without objection in the trade under the contract description, be of fair average quality, and be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.”

Cardozo v. True, 342 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). “), Section 672.314, Florida Statutes; that the second question is answered by the common law of implied warranties.”

— 672.314(2)(a) — 2 cases

Crawford v. Gold Kist, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 682 (M.D. Fla. 1985).

Toca v. Tutco, LLC (S.D. Fla. 2020).

— 672.314(2)(c) — 3 cases

Hartman v. Opelika Mach. & Welding, 414 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Toca v. Tutco, LLC (S.D. Fla. 2020).

John H. Phipps Broad. Stations, Inc. v. Int'l Harvester Co., 45 Fla. Supp. 82 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1976).

— 672.314(3) — 1 case

Cassisi v. Maytag Co., 396 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “The Restatement's standard should be compared to Section 672.314(3), Florida Statutes (1979) (UCC 2-314), requiring that in order for a product to be merchantable, it must be "fit for the ordinary purposes" for which it was intended.”

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.