672.316

Exclusion or modification of warranties.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

672.316 Exclusion or modification of warranties.—

(1) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but, subject to the provisions of this chapter on parol or extrinsic evidence (s. 672.202), negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it, the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous; and, to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness, the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that “There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof.”

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2):

(a) Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like “as is” or “with all faults” or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and

(b) When the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he or she desired or has refused to examine the goods, there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him or her; and

(c) An implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by a course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade.

(d) In a transaction involving the sale of cattle or hogs, there is no implied warranty that the cattle or hogs are free from sickness or disease. However, no exemption applies in cases where the seller knowingly sells cattle or hogs that are diseased.

(4) Remedies for breach of warranty can be limited in accordance with the provisions of this chapter on liquidation or limitation of damages and on contractual modification of remedy (ss. 672.718 and 672.719).

(5) The procurement, processing, storage, distribution, or use of whole blood, plasma, blood products, and blood derivatives for the purpose of injecting or transfusing the same, or any of them, into the human body for any purpose whatsoever is declared to be the rendering of a service by any person participating therein and does not constitute a sale, whether or not any consideration is given therefor; and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are not applicable.

(6) The procurement, processing, testing, storing, or providing of human tissue and organs for human transplant, by an institution qualified for such purposes, is the rendering of a service; and such service does not constitute the sale of goods or products to which implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose are applicable. No implied warranties exist as to defects which cannot be detected, removed, or prevented by reasonable use of available scientific procedures or techniques.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 1, ch. 69-157; s. 1, ch. 79-141; s. 2, ch. 84-264; s. 566, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2003-74.

Note.—s. 2-316, U.C.C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 58 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Walls v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Walls v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co. (1993) flmd · cites it 23× “1992), Armour claims that Florida’s “blood-shield” statute, Fla. Stat. § 672.316 (5), precludes strict products liability and warranty actions relating to the processing and distribution of blood derivatives.”

Rehurek v. Chrysler Credit Corporation (1972) fladistctapp · cites it 10× “" This language must be examined in the light of the requirements contained in Fla. Stat. § 672.316 (2), F.S.A., Exclusion or Modification of Warranties.”

Silva v. Southwest Florida Blood Bank, Inc. (1992) fla · cites it 5× “See § 672.316(5), Fla. Stat. (1989). Section 672.”

David v. American Suzuki Motor Corp. (2009) flsd · cites it 3× “1973) 9 (holding that written warranty may limit a remedy to repair or replacement of parts so long as limitation is clearly expressed); Fla. Stat. § 672.316 (“Remedies for breach of warranty can be limited in accordance with the provisions of this chapter on liquidation or…”

McCormick MacHinery, Inc. v. Julian E. Johnson & Sons, Inc. (1988) fladistctapp · cites it 6× “The trial court disagreed, finding that the disclaimer was conspicuous within the meaning of section 672.316, Florida Statutes (1985), and effectively removed the property from the implied warranty provisions of the Florida Uniform Commercial Code.”

Rudy's Glass Const. Co. v. EF Johnson Co. (1981) fladistctapp · cites it 5× “201(10), Florida Statutes (1979) and therefore effective under Section 672.316, Florida Statutes (1979) to exclude or modify an implied warranty of fitness.”

In re Rust-Oleum Restore Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation (2016) ilnd “6, § 2-316(2); Fla. Stat. § 672.316 (2); Ga. Code § 11-2-316(2); Idaho Code § 28-2-316 (2); 810 ILCS 5/2-316(2); Ind.”

JDI HOLDINGS, LLC v. Jet Management, Inc. (2010) flnd · cites it 4× “Fla. Stat. § 672.316 (2). The disclaimers of implied warranties in the aircraft purchase agreement are plain and conspicuous, set forth in a separate paragraph with bold font and capital lettering.”

Raskin v. Community Blood Centers of South Florida, Inc. (1997) fladistctapp · cites it 9× “§ 672.316(5), Fla. Stat. (1989). It was appellants' position, which we adopt as being correct, that their obligation was to show the defect could "be detected or removed by a reasonable use of scientific procedures or techniques.”

Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith (1992) fladistctapp · cites it 4× “Should we hold otherwise, an automobile dealer would effectively be precluded from disclaiming responsibility for the warranties of the manufacturer, despite the fact that section 672.316, Florida Statutes, authorizes a dealer to do so.”

Rose v. ADT SEC. Services, Inc. (2008) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “Section 672.316(2), Florida Statutes (1999), instructs that, "to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it, the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous; and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of…”

Roberts v. SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASS'N, INC. (1987) mdctspecapp · cites it 2× “6, § 2-316 (5) (1975); Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.316(5) (West.Supp.1087); Ga.”

Show all 58 citing cases →

— 672.316(1) — 3 cases

New Nautical Coatings, Inc. v. Scoggin (1999) fladistctapp

Medmoun v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (2022) flmd

James W. Dawson, Jr. and Edmond C. Hill, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Generac Pow (2025) flmd

— 672.316(2) — 14 cases

Rose v. ADT SEC. Services, Inc. (2008) fladistctapp “Section 672.316(2), Florida Statutes (1999), instructs that, "to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it, the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous; and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of…”

Hi Neighbor Enterprises, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (1980) flnd

Monsanto Agr. Products Co. v. Edenfield (1982) fladistctapp

Xerographic Supplies Corp. v. Hertz Commercial (1980) fladistctapp

Rehurek v. Chrysler Credit Corporation (1972) fladistctapp “" This language must be examined in the light of the requirements contained in Fla. Stat. § 672.316 (2), F.S.A., Exclusion or Modification of Warranties.”

— 672.316(3)(a) — 3 cases

McCormick MacHinery, Inc. v. Julian E. Johnson & Sons, Inc. (1988) fladistctapp “The trial court disagreed, finding that the disclaimer was conspicuous within the meaning of section 672.316, Florida Statutes (1985), and effectively removed the property from the implied warranty provisions of the Florida Uniform Commercial Code.”

Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith (1992) fladistctapp “Should we hold otherwise, an automobile dealer would effectively be precluded from disclaiming responsibility for the warranties of the manufacturer, despite the fact that section 672.316, Florida Statutes, authorizes a dealer to do so.”

Rojas v. Vitale (1988) flacirct

— 672.316(3)(b) — 5 cases

Light v. Weldarc Co., Inc. (1990) fladistctapp

David v. Davenport (1995) fladistctapp

Belizaire v. Lydic (1991) fladistctapp

Hall Truck Sales, Inc. v. Wilder Mobile Homes, Inc. (1981) fladistctapp

Doug Connor, Inc. v. Proto-Grind, Inc. (2000) fladistctapp

— 672.316(3)(d) — 1 case

Pennington Grain and Seed, Inc. v. Tuten (1982) fladistctapp

— 672.316(5) — 11 cases

Walls v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co. (1993) flmd “1992), Armour claims that Florida’s “blood-shield” statute, Fla. Stat. § 672.316 (5), precludes strict products liability and warranty actions relating to the processing and distribution of blood derivatives.”

Silva v. Southwest Florida Blood Bank, Inc. (1992) fla “See § 672.316(5), Fla. Stat. (1989). Section 672.”

Raskin v. Community Blood Centers of South Florida, Inc. (1997) fladistctapp “§ 672.316(5), Fla. Stat. (1989). It was appellants' position, which we adopt as being correct, that their obligation was to show the defect could "be detected or removed by a reasonable use of scientific procedures or techniques.”

Roberts v. SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASS'N, INC. (1987) mdctspecapp “6, § 2-316 (5) (1975); Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.316(5) (West.Supp.1087); Ga.”

Sicuranza v. Northwest Fla. Blood Ctr., Inc. (1991) fladistctapp

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.