Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 672.607 (2025)

Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over.

✓ 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

672.607 Effect of acceptance; notice of breach; burden of establishing breach after acceptance; notice of claim or litigation to person answerable over.—

(1) The buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.

(2) Acceptance of goods by the buyer precludes rejection of the goods accepted and if made with knowledge of a nonconformity cannot be revoked because of it unless the acceptance was on the reasonable assumption that the nonconformity would be seasonably cured but acceptance does not of itself impair any other remedy provided by this chapter for nonconformity.

(3) Where a tender has been accepted:

(a) The buyer must within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy; and

(b) If the claim is one for infringement or the like (s. 672.312(3)) and the buyer is sued as a result of such a breach he or she must so notify the seller within a reasonable time after he or she receives notice of the litigation or be barred from any remedy over for liability established by the litigation.

(4) The burden is on the buyer to establish any breach with respect to the goods accepted.

(5) Where the buyer is sued for breach of a warranty or other obligation for which his or her seller is answerable over:

(a) The buyer may give his or her seller written notice of the litigation. If the notice states that the seller may come in and defend and that if the seller does not do so he or she will be bound in any action against him or her by his or her buyer by any determination of fact common to the two litigations, then unless the seller after seasonable receipt of the notice does come in and defend he or she is so bound.

(b) If the claim is one for infringement or the like (s. 672.312(3)) the original seller may demand in writing that his or her buyer turn over to him or her control of the litigation including settlement or else be barred from any remedy over and if he or she also agrees to bear all expense and to satisfy any adverse judgment, then unless the buyer after seasonable receipt of the demand does turn over control the buyer is so barred.

(6) The provisions of subsections (3), (4) and (5) apply to any obligation of a buyer to hold the seller harmless against infringement or the like (s. 672.312(3)).

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 592, ch. 97-102.

Note.—s. 2-607, U.C.C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 47 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Gen. Matters, Inc. v. Paramount Canning Co., 382 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gen. Matters, Inc. v. Paramount Canning Co., 382 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). · cites it 10× “Paramount cross-appeals and argues that because neither Country Club nor York gave notice of the alleged breach until after destruction of the goods, York is barred from any remedy under Section 672.”

Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 672.607 (3)(a) (2011) (“The buyer must within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy .”

In re Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co. Mktg. & Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 288 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (D.N.M. 2017). · cites it 3× “" Fla. Stat. § 672.607 (3)(a). 4. Illinois Law .”

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Galaxis USA, Ltd., 222 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (M.D. Fla. 2002). · cites it 4× “See Fla. Stat. § 672.607 (1) (“The buyer must pay at the contract price for any goods accepted.”

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× “Royal contends that appellees’ failure to give timely notice of any breach and their improper maintenance and unauthorized modifications of the RBG-I’s preclude any breach of warranty claims. As a condition precedent to recovery for breach of warranty, a buyer must notify the…”

Schechner v. Whirlpool Corp., 237 F. Supp. 3d 601 (E.D. Mich. 2017). “” Fla. Stat. § 672.607 (3)(a); Ariz. Rev. Stat.”

Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Co., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (S.D. Fla. 2014). · cites it 2× “Section 672.607(3)(a), Florida Statutes; (6) The injuries sustained by the buyer as a result of the breach of warranty.”

Validsa, Inc. v. PDVSA Servs. Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (S.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 6× “Specifically, Plaintiff cites to Fla. Stat. § 672.607 (1), which provides, “[t]he buyer must pay at the contract rate for any goods accepted.”

Taylor v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 555 F. Supp. 59 (M.D. Fla. 1983). · cites it 3× “According to Dunham-Bush , this requirement flows from § 672.607(3)(a), which provides that a buyer who has accepted a tender of goods must notify the seller within a “reasonable time” after he discovers or should have discovered a breach, or he will be barred from remedy.”

Jovine v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 2× “Section 672.607(3), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that "[w]here a tender has been accepted: (a) The buyer must within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or *1340 should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.”

Shreve Land Co., Inc. v. J & D Fin. Corp., 421 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). · cites it 4× “Ordinarily, acceptance of the 55 doors would make Shreve liable for payment under section 672.607(1), Florida Statutes (1979).”

Baranco v. Ford Motor Co., 294 F. Supp. 3d 950 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “See FAC ¶¶ 82, 84 (Abbitt); ¶¶ 85, 87, 88 (Abruscato); ¶¶ 89-91 (Brown); ¶¶ 92-94 (Caron); ¶¶ 97-98 (Farrell); ¶¶ 101-102 (Furno); ¶¶ 105-106 (Jenkin); ¶¶ 108-111 (Kinnunen); ¶¶ 116-118 (Nicolau).”

Show all 47 citing cases →

— 672.607(1) — 5 cases

Shreve Land Co., Inc. v. J & D Fin. Corp., 421 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). “Ordinarily, acceptance of the 55 doors would make Shreve liable for payment under section 672.607(1), Florida Statutes (1979).”

Bp Dev. & Mgmt. Corp. v. P. Lafer Ent., Inc., 538 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

ADAM METAL SUPPLY v. Electrodex, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Electron Tubes Int'l, Inc. v. Shell Containers, Inc., 410 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Hawke Distrib., Inc. v. Nuevo Sol Partners, Inc., 689 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

— 672.607(3) — 5 cases

Jovine v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2011). “Section 672.607(3), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that "[w]here a tender has been accepted: (a) The buyer must within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or *1340 should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.”

Moss v. Walgreen Co., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2011).

US Fid. & Guar. Co. v. N. Am. Steel Corp., 335 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

Maas Bros., Inc. v. Vincent (In re Vincent), 10 B.R. 549 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1981).

Matus v. Sport Squad, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2024).

— 672.607(3)(a) — 16 cases

Gen. Matters, Inc. v. Paramount Canning Co., 382 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). “Paramount cross-appeals and argues that because neither Country Club nor York gave notice of the alleged breach until after destruction of the goods, York is barred from any remedy under Section 672.”

Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Co., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1223 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “Section 672.607(3)(a), Florida Statutes; (6) The injuries sustained by the buyer as a result of the breach of warranty.”

Taylor v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 555 F. Supp. 59 (M.D. Fla. 1983). “According to Dunham-Bush , this requirement flows from § 672.607(3)(a), which provides that a buyer who has accepted a tender of goods must notify the seller within a “reasonable time” after he discovers or should have discovered a breach, or he will be barred from remedy.”

In Re Asbestos Litig., 679 F. Supp. 1096 (S.D. Fla. 1987).

Keegan v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012). “See Fla. Stat. § 672.607 (3)(a) (2011) (“The buyer must within a reasonable time after he or she discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy .”

— 672.607(5)(a) — 1 case

Lake v. Irrgang, 391 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

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.