672.509

Risk of loss in the absence of breach.

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

672.509 Risk of loss in the absence of breach.—

(1) Where the contract requires or authorizes the seller to ship the goods by carrier:

(a) If it does not require her or him to deliver them at a particular destination, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier even though the shipment is under reservation (s. 672.505); but

(b) If it does require her or him to deliver them at a particular destination and the goods are there duly tendered while in the possession of the carrier, the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the goods are there duly so tendered as to enable the buyer to take delivery.

(2) Where the goods are held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved, the risk of loss passes to the buyer:

(a) On her or his receipt of possession or control of a negotiable document of title covering the goods; or

(b) On acknowledgment by the bailee of the buyer’s right to possession of the goods; or

(c) After her or his receipt of possession or control of a nonnegotiable document of title or other direction to deliver in a record, as provided in s. 672.503(4)(b).

(3) In any case not within subsection (1) or (2), the risk of loss passes to the buyer on her or his receipt of the goods if the seller is a merchant; otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.

(4) The provisions of this section are subject to contrary agreement of the parties and to the provisions of this chapter on sale on approval (s. 672.327) and on effect of breach on risk of loss (s. 672.510).

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 584, ch. 97-102; s. 13, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 2-509, U.C.C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Ladex Corp. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ladex Corp. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales (1985) fladistctapp · cites it 4× “§ 672.509(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981); U.C.C.”

Breezy Bay, Inc. v. INDUSTRIA MAQUILADORA MEXICANA (1978) fladistctapp · cites it 2× “204, Florida Statutes (1977) [warehouseman's liability] or under Section 672.509, Florida Statutes (1977) [risk of loss between seller and buyer] is untenable because the relationship between Breezy Bay and IMM simply does not fall under either one of these categories.”

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Scents Corporation (2025) ca11 · cites it 4× “; see Fla. Stat. § 672.509 (1)(a). In a destination contract, in contrast, “the seller agrees to de- liver the goods to the buyer at a particular destination and to bear the risk of loss until tender of delivery.”

Skripak v. Commissioner (1985) “sec. 672.509(2)(a) (West 1966, 1984 Supp.); Ga.”

— 672.509(1)(a) — 1 case

Ladex Corp. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales (1985) fladistctapp “§ 672.509(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981); U.C.C.”

— 672.509(1)(b) — 2 cases

Ladex Corp. v. Transportes Aereos Nacionales (1985) fladistctapp “§ 672.509(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1981); U.C.C.”

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Scents Corporation (2025) ca11 “; see Fla. Stat. § 672.509 (1)(a). In a destination contract, in contrast, “the seller agrees to de- liver the goods to the buyer at a particular destination and to bear the risk of loss until tender of delivery.”

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.