Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 672.713 (2025)

Buyer’s damages for nondelivery or repudiation.

✓ 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

672.713 Buyer’s damages for nondelivery or repudiation.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (s. 672.723), the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this chapter (s. 672.715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller’s breach.

(2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254.

Note.—s. 2-713, U.C.C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1988–2015 · leading case: HGI Assocs., Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co., 427 F.3d 867 (11th Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

HGI Assocs., Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co., 427 F.3d 867 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “713 of Florida’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), Fla. Stat. § 672.713 . In that section, “the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the…”

DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc., 163 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). · cites it 2× “It is well-established in Florida, and in virtually every state, that the measure of a buyer’s damages for a breach of contract when the seller refuses to deliver a product as agreed can include the difference between the market price of that product and the price of the product…”

Gulf Power Co. v. Coalsales II, LLC, 522 F. App'x 699 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Gulf Power did not plead, in the alternative, a claim for damages under the Florida UCC market remedy provision, Fla. Stat. § 672.713 , which calculates damages as “the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price…”

Kneale v. Jay Ben Inc., 527 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). · cites it 2× “173 (1921); § 672.713(1), Fla. Stat. (1987). The failure of the circuit court to adhere to this basic rule [1] resulted in a miscarriage of justice which requires that the instant petition for certiorari be granted.”

Sav-A-Stop Inc. v. Mayfair Super Markets, Inc. (In Re Sav-A-Stop Inc.), 119 B.R. 317 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990). · cites it 3× “712, the cover price is conclusively determined to be the fair market price of the goods, whereas under § 672.713 the buyer has the burden of proving the market price.”

— 672.713(1) — 2 cases

Kneale v. Jay Ben Inc., 527 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “173 (1921); § 672.713(1), Fla. Stat. (1987). The failure of the circuit court to adhere to this basic rule [1] resulted in a miscarriage of justice which requires that the instant petition for certiorari be granted.”

Sav-A-Stop Inc. v. Mayfair Super Markets, Inc. (In Re Sav-A-Stop Inc.), 119 B.R. 317 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990). “712, the cover price is conclusively determined to be the fair market price of the goods, whereas under § 672.713 the buyer has the burden of proving the market price.”

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.