672.612
“Installment contract”; breach.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
672.612 “Installment contract”; breach.—
(1) An “installment contract” is one which requires or authorizes the delivery of goods in separate lots to be separately accepted, even though the contract contains a clause “each delivery is a separate contract” or its equivalent.
(2) The buyer may reject any installment which is nonconforming if the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured or if the nonconformity is a defect in the required documents; but if the nonconformity does not fall within subsection (3) and the seller gives adequate assurance of its cure the buyer must accept that installment.
(3) Whenever nonconformity or default with respect to one or more installments substantially impairs the value of the whole contract there is a breach of the whole. But the aggrieved party reinstates the contract if she or he accepts a nonconforming installment without seasonably notifying of cancellation or if she or he brings an action with respect only to past installments or demands performance as to future installments.
History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 597, ch. 97-102.
Note.—s. 2-612, U.C.C.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Validsa, Inc. v. PDVSA Services Inc.
Validsa, Inc. v. PDVSA Services Inc. (2009)
“4th DCA 2004) (because time was not of the essence in a contract for the sale of an aircraft, the buyer did not breach the contract by failing to perform on time); see also Fla. Stat. § 672.612 (2) (non-performance under an installment contract must "substantially impair” the…”
Parsons v. Motor Homes of America (1985)
“The UCC remedies include, (1) cancellation Section 672.612; (2) "cover" and damages for non-delivery Sections 672.”
Absolute Trading Corp. v. Bariven S.A. (2013)
“” Fla. Stat. § 672.612 (3) (2012). Here, the contamination substantially impaired the value of the whole contract.”
Dawn International LTD. v. Jacob Fleishman Sales, Inc. (2024)
“Fla. Stat. § 672.612 (1). With an installment contract, the buyer may reject any nonconforming installment if the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured.”
— 672.612(2) — 1 case
Dawn International LTD. v. Jacob Fleishman Sales, Inc. (2024)
“Fla. Stat. § 672.612 (1). With an installment contract, the buyer may reject any nonconforming installment if the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured.”
— 672.612(3) — 1 case
Dawn International LTD. v. Jacob Fleishman Sales, Inc. (2024)
“Fla. Stat. § 672.612 (1). With an installment contract, the buyer may reject any nonconforming installment if the nonconformity substantially impairs the value of that installment and cannot be cured.”
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.