[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff purchased a product;
2. Defendant provided an express warranty by affirmation of fact or promise, or description of the product;
3. The product failed to conform to the defendant’s affirmation or description; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages caused by the defendant’s breach.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Plaintiff purchased a product;
2. Defendant provided an express warranty by affirmation of fact or promise, or description of the product;
3. The product failed to conform to the defendant’s affirmation or description; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages caused by the defendant’s breach.

The plaintiff must give notice for statutory breach of warranty claims (§ 672.607(3)(a), Fla. Stat.) unless such notice is excused. See Monroe County v. Gonzalez, 593 So. 2d 1143, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Courts are divided over whether Florida’s adoption of the U.C.C. displaces common-law claims for breach of implied warranty. Compare Cardozo v. True, 342 So. 2d 1053, 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (Florida’s U.C.C. does not displace common-law doctrine of implied warranty) and West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80, 88 (Fla. 1976) (U.C.C. remedies are exclusive only where decreed by legislature) with Taylor v. American Honda Motor Co., 555 F. Supp. 59, 62 (M.D. Fla. 1982) (Florida’s U.C.C. provides the exclusive remedy for breach of implied warranty against a seller of goods).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Fourth District: Dunham-Bush, Inc. v. Thermo-Air Serv., Inc., 351 So. 2d 351, 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit:  Royal Typewriter Co., a Div. of Litton Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Xerographic Supplies Corp., 719 F. 2d 1092, 1100-01 (11th Cir. 1983).

Northern District: Thomas v. Generac Power Sys. Inc., No. 4:18-CV-495-RH/MJF, 2020 WL 9602342, at *6 (N.D. Fla. May 8, 2020); Wyse v. Gerard Roof Prods., LLC, No. 3:19cv121-TKW-EMT, 2020 WL 1318348, at *2 (N.D. Fla. March 2, 2020).

Middle District: Razen v. FCA US LLC, No: 6:19-cv-831-Orl-40LRH, 2019 WL 7482214, at *5 (M.D. Fla. October 23, 2019); Kelly v. Lee Cty. R.V. Sales Co., No: 8:18-CV-424-T-27JSS, 2019 WL 5887482, at *7 (M.D. Fla. November 12, 2019).

Southern District: Jackson v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, LLC, 2021 WL 3666312, *17-18 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2021);  Plain Bay Sales, LLC v. Gallaher, 2022 WL 409577, *12-13 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2022);         A&E Adventures LLC v. Intercard, Inc., 529 F.Supp.3d 1333, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2021);  Venus Concept USA, Inc. v. Setiba Grp., Inc., NO. 19-22642-CIV-ALTONAGA/Goodman, 2020 WL 2937895, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2020).

FLORIDA STATUTES

§ 672.313, Fla. Stat.

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach of Express Warranty

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (five years); but see Dubin v. Dow Corning Corp., 478 So. 2d 71, 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (four year statute of limitations provided by § 95.11(3)(c), Fla. Stat., applies to all breach of warranty claims arising from construction of, or improvements to, real property).
(3) Federal and state courts disagree on the requirement of privity. Federal district courts diverge on the issue, and the 11th Circuit has specifically declined to rule that privity is required in all cases. See Godelia v. Doe 1, 881 F.3d 1309, 1321 (11th Cir. 2018). Florida state courts uniformly require privity with the seller for recovery for express and implied contracts. See Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 1988).

(4) Conspicuous disclaimers written in plain language are a defense to breach of warranty claims § 672.316(1), Fla. Stat.; see also Parson v. Motor Homes of America, Inc., 465 So. 2d 1285, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

(5) A waiver signed by the aggrieved party is an absolute defense to breach of warranty claims § 671.107, Fla. Stat.

(6) Plaintiff/buyer must give notice to defendant/seller within a reasonable time after she discovers, or should have discovered, the breach. See § 672.607(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

(7) A warranty is not created by the seller’s puffery in stating an opinion or commendation of the good’s value § 672.313(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. v. Conley, 372 So. 2d 965, 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

(8) Plaintiff’s failure to properly reject the goods may serve to diminish the recovery of damages. See Central Florida Antenna Serv., Inc. v. A.M. Crabtree, 503 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); see also § 672.608, Fla. Stat.

(9) Product misuse will diminish the plaintiff’s recovery through comparative negligence. But compare Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So. 2d 331, 334 (Fla. 1969) (product misuse is a defense to breach of warranty actions) with Standard Havens Products v. Benitez, 648 So. 2d 1192, 1197 (Fla. 1994) (product misuse reduces plaintiff’s recovery through comparative negligence).

[/MM_Access_Decision]