Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 672.615 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 672.615 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 672.615 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 672.615

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS
Chapter 672
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: SALES
View Entire Chapter
672.615 Excuse by failure of presupposed conditions.Except so far as a seller may have assumed a greater obligation and subject to the preceding section on substituted performance:
(1) Delay in delivery or nondelivery in whole or in part by a seller who complies with subsections (2) and (3) is not a breach of her or his duty under a contract for sale if performance as agreed has been made impracticable by the occurrence of a contingency the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made or by compliance in good faith with any applicable foreign or domestic governmental regulation or order whether or not it later proves to be invalid.
(2) Where the causes mentioned in subsection (1) affect only a part of the seller’s capacity to perform, the seller must allocate production and deliveries among her or his customers but may at her or his option include regular customers not then under contract as well as the seller’s own requirements for further manufacture. The seller may so allocate in any manner which is fair and reasonable.
(3) The seller must notify the buyer seasonably that there will be delay or nondelivery and, when allocation is required under subsection (2), of the estimated quota thus made available for the buyer.
History.s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 599, ch. 97-102.
Note.s. 2-615, U.C.C.

F.S. 672.615 on Google Scholar

F.S. 672.615 on CourtListener

Amendments to 672.615


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 672.615

Total Results: 4  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 415 F. Supp. 429 (S.D. Fla. 1975).

Cited 27 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 721, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15673

...Gulf answered Eastern's complaint, alleging that the contract was not a binding requirements contract, was void for want of mutuality, and, furthermore, was "commercially impracticable" within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code § 2-615; Fla. Stat. §§ 672.614 and 672.615....
...The court concludes that Eastern has not violated the contract. III COMMERCIAL IMPRACTICABILITY Gulf's commercial impracticability defenses are premised on two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code specifically §§ 2-614 (F.S. 672.614) and 2-615 (F.S. 672.615)....
Copy

City of Key West v. RLJS CORP., 537 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 135

...sonable use of the property. Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County, 431 So.2d 606, 611 n. 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). If an impact fee is too great, the developer may attempt to rescind his contract with the buyer by claiming commercial impracticability. See § 672.615, Fla....
Copy

Pendelton v. Witcoski, 836 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31641519

...See Uniform Commercial Code § 2-615(a)." Typical of all the above provisions is that contained in section 2-615(a), which excuses a seller's performance "if performance as agreed has been made impracticable by the occurrence of a contingency the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made." § 672.615(1), Fla....
Copy

Tandy Corp. v. Eisenberg, 488 So. 2d 927 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1259, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8118

...0 plus interest at the legal interest rate of 12% per annum from December 21, 1982, the date of repudiation of the contract by the Defendant, which amounts to $2,252.08. D. The defense of commercial impracticability as contained in Florida Statutes, § 672.615, asserted by Defendant is not applicable to this case because Defendant knew at the time it entered into the contract that the product being purchased had been cancelled and would not be produced....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.