Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 672.719 (2025)

Contractual modification or limitation of remedy.

✓ 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

672.719 Contractual modification or limitation of remedy.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section and of the preceding section on liquidation and limitation of damages:

(a) The agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this chapter and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this chapter, as by limiting the buyer’s remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of nonconforming goods or parts; and

(b) Resort to a remedy as provided is optional unless the remedy is expressly agreed to be exclusive, in which case it is the sole remedy.

(2) Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this code.

(3) Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable but limitation of damages where the loss is commercial is not.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254.

Note.—s. 2-719, U.C.C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Parsons v. Motor Homes of Am., 465 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Parsons v. Motor Homes of Am., 465 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). · cites it 11× “ (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section and of the preceding section on liquidation and limitation of damages: (a) The agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this chapter and may limit or…”

David v. Am. Suzuki Motor Corp., 629 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2009). · cites it 5× “”); Fla. Stat. § 672.719 (“The agreement may provide for remedies .”

Radiation Tech., Inc. v. Ware Const. Co., 445 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1983). · cites it 4× “The district court initially entered a decision reversing the trial court based upon its conclusion that the J-27 was not inherently dangerous, in that it did not threaten bodily injury; therefore, the court reasoned, there was no duty to warn of its potential adverse affect on…”

In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “6, § 2-719(1); Fla. Stat. § 672.719 (1); Ga. Code § 11-2-719(1); Idaho Code § 28-2-719 (1); 810 ILCS 5/2-719(1); Ind.”

Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith, 610 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). · cites it 5× “Section 672.719, Florida Statutes, authorizes the parties to a contract to provide for remedies in addition to, or in substitution for, those remedies provided in the UCC.”

Bailey v. Monaco Coach Corp., 350 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Ga. 2004). · cites it 2× “Fla. Stat. Ann. § 672.719 (l)(a). However, if the repair-or-replace limited warranty fails of its essential purpose, the consumer may seek to recover any remedy provided by Florida law.”

Cooper v. Meridian Yachts, Ltd., 575 F.3d 1151 (11th Cir. 2009). “Fla. Stat. § 672.719 (“Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable.”

In re Seagate Tech. LLC Litig., 233 F. Supp. 3d 776 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “Code § 2719 ; Fla. Stat. § 672.719 (2); 810 Ill. Comp. Stat.”

Tampa Farm Serv., Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 356 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). · cites it 6× “Bynum put great emphasis on the fact that the quality of corn was of paramount importance, as inferior corn adversely affected egg production.”

Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Avior Tech., Inc., 990 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). · cites it 2× “See § 672.719, Fla. Stat. (1999); Metro. Dade County v.”

Mayor's Jewellers v. Calif. Pers, 685 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). · cites it 2× “Buyer invoked section 672.719(2), Florida Statutes (1975), in the Florida Uniform Commercial Code.”

Orange Motors of Coral Gables v. Dade Co. Dairies, 258 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). · cites it 2× “It argued the warranty provided for a remedy agreed to by the parties, thus, plaintiff was foreclosed from rescission under § 672.719, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., which provides the parties may provide for a remedy by agreement.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— 672.719(1)(a) — 3 cases

Gilbert & Caddy, P.A. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2016).

Tampa Farm Serv., Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 356 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). “Bynum put great emphasis on the fact that the quality of corn was of paramount importance, as inferior corn adversely affected egg production.”

Dawson (M.D. Fla. 2025).

— 672.719(1)(b) — 2 cases

Parsons v. Motor Homes of Am., 465 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). “ (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section and of the preceding section on liquidation and limitation of damages: (a) The agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this chapter and may limit or…”

Pennington Grain & Seed, Inc. v. Tuten, 422 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

— 672.719(2) — 5 cases

Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith, 610 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “Section 672.719, Florida Statutes, authorizes the parties to a contract to provide for remedies in addition to, or in substitution for, those remedies provided in the UCC.”

Mayor's Jewellers v. Calif. Pers, 685 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). “Buyer invoked section 672.719(2), Florida Statutes (1975), in the Florida Uniform Commercial Code.”

Varner v. BL Lanier Fruit Co., Inc., 370 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Skyline Comput. Corp. v. Encore Comput. Corp., 699 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

— 672.719(3) — 1 case

Radiation Tech., Inc. v. Ware Const. Co., 445 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1983). “The district court initially entered a decision reversing the trial court based upon its conclusion that the J-27 was not inherently dangerous, in that it did not threaten bodily injury; therefore, the court reasoned, there was no duty to warn of its potential adverse affect on…”

— 672.719(l)(b) — 1 case

City of Jacksonville ex rel. Interform, Inc. v. Orr Constr. Co., 427 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

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.