672.510
Effect of breach on risk of loss.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
672.510 Effect of breach on risk of loss.—
(1) Where a tender or delivery of goods so fails to conform to the contract as to give a right of rejection the risk of their loss remains on the seller until cure or acceptance.
(2) Where the buyer rightfully revokes acceptance he or she may to the extent of any deficiency in his or her effective insurance coverage treat the risk of loss as having rested on the seller from the beginning.
(3) Where the buyer as to conforming goods already identified to the contract for sale repudiates or is otherwise in breach before risk of their loss has passed to him or her, the seller may to the extent of any deficiency in his or her effective insurance coverage treat the risk of loss as resting on the buyer for a commercially reasonable time.
History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 585, ch. 97-102.
Note.—s. 2-510, U.C.C.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: In Re Thomas
In Re Thomas (1995)
“Under Florida Statute § 672.510(1) the seller (here Sunkissed) cannot shift the risk of loss to the buyer (the Debtor herein) unless the seller’s actions conform with all the conditions resting on him under the contract.”
Zeflon LLC v. World Reach Health, LLC (2025)
“The parties had a shipment contract, given that Zeflon was required to send World Reach the goods by carrier, and World Reach has proffered no evidence that the parties departed from the shipment contract default.”
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Scents Corporation (2025)
“” Fla. Stat. § 672.510 (1). In that scenario, “the risk of their loss remains on the seller until cure or acceptance.”
— 672.510(1) — 2 cases
In Re Thomas (1995)
“Under Florida Statute § 672.510(1) the seller (here Sunkissed) cannot shift the risk of loss to the buyer (the Debtor herein) unless the seller’s actions conform with all the conditions resting on him under the contract.”
Zeflon LLC v. World Reach Health, LLC (2025)
“The parties had a shipment contract, given that Zeflon was required to send World Reach the goods by carrier, and World Reach has proffered no evidence that the parties departed from the shipment contract default.”
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.