Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 672.315 (2025)
Implied warranty; fitness for particular purpose.
✓ 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
672.315 Implied warranty; fitness for particular purpose.—Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.
Note.—s. 2-315, U.C.C.; supersedes s. 578.13.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “6, § 2-315; Fla. Stat. § 672.315 ; Ga. Code § 11-2-315; Idaho Code § 28-2-315 ; 810 ILCS 5/2-315; Ind.”
Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Co., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “314, Florida Statutes); implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Section 672.315, Florida Statutes); (3) Facts in respect to the creation of the particular warranty.”
Dunham-Bush, Inc. v. Thermo-Air Serv., Inc., 351 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). “314, Florida Statutes [1975]); implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Section 672.315, Florida Statutes [1975]); 3) Facts in respect to the creation of the particular warranty.”
Armadillo Distrib. Enter., Inc. v. Hai Yun Musical Instruments Manufacture Co., 142 F. Supp. 3d 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2015). “These statutes are not, mentioned in the Complaint, which cites only to Fla. Stat. § 672.315 . The Court can only address the counts presented in the operative pleading and will do so individually.”
RA Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). “" [7] Section 672.315, Florida Statutes (1975), provides: "Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods,…”
Ryan v. Atl. Fertilizer & Chem., 515 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “Section 672.315, Florida Statutes, defines a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose: Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to…”
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). “Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.315; see Royal Business Machines, Inc.”
Coastal & Native Plant Specialties, Inc. v. Engineered Textile Prods., Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Fla. 2001). “” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 672.315 (West 1993).”
Light v. Weldarc Co., Inc., 569 So. 2d 1302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). “Section 672.315, Florida Statutes (1989) provides for the imposition of the implied warranty: Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to…”
E. Cement v. Halliburton Co., 600 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). “314- § 672.315, Fla. Stat. (1989). Additionally, under section 672.”
Interfase Mktg., Inc. v. Pioneer Tech. Grp., Inc., 774 F. Supp. 1355 (M.D. Fla. 1991). “The complaint contained the following causes of action against Defendant KSH: 1) negligent misrepresentation; 2) breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as provided by § 672.315 of the Florida Statutes; and 3) breach of a common law warranty.”
Premix-Marbletite Mfg. Corp. v. SKW Chemicals, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “314 (implied warranty of merchantability) and UCC § 2-315, Fla. Stat. 672.315 (implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose).”
— 672.315(2) — 1 case
Graf v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 636 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
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.