[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff and defendant entered a valid contract;
2. Defendant committed a material breach of the contract; and
3. Plaintiff suffered damages caused by 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 and defendant entered a valid contract;
2. Defendant committed a material breach of the contract; and
3. Plaintiff suffered damages caused by defendant’s breach.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

First District: Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC v. Parks, 2022 WL 1482387, *2 (Fla. 1^st DCA May 11, 2022);  Knowles v. C.I.T. Corp., 346 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

Second District: Cole v. Plantation Palms Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 371 So. 3d 413, 415 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023); Synergy Cont. Grp., Inc. v. Fednat Ins. Co., 332 So.3d 62, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); Farman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Long Beach Mortg. Loan Tr. 2006-05, 311 So.3d 191, 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); JF & LN, LLC v. Royal Oldsmobile-GMC Trucks Co., 292 So.3d 500, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

Third District: Bandklayder Dev., LLC v. Sabga, 406 So. 3d 265, 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025); IMC Group, L.L.C. v. Outar Inv. Co., L.L.C., 2022 WL 163835, at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 19, 2022); People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Alonzo-Pombo, 307 So. 3d 840, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); R. Plants, Inc. v. Dome Enter., Inc., 221 So.3d 752, 754 (Fla. 3d DCA  2017).

Fourth District: Grand Harbor Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. GH Vero Beach Dev., LLC, 395 So. 3d 168, 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024); Rauch, Weaver, Norfleet, Kurtz & Co. v. AJP Pine Island Warehouses, Inc., 313 So. 3d 625, 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Chetu, Inc. v. KO Gaming, Inc., 261 So. 3d 605, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Fifth District: Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. v. L. Offs. of E. Clay Parker, 160 So. 3d 955, 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Baron v. Osman, 39 So. 3d 449, 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

Sixth District: Kinchla v. Ran Investments, LLC, 397 So. 3d 1064, 1068 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit:  Gonzalez v. Indep. Order of Foresters, No. 24-10758, 2025 WL 337898, at *3 (11th Cir. Jan. 30, 2025); IPS Avon Park Corp. v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., No. 22-10547, 2023 WL 3750708, at *2 (11th Cir. June 1, 2023); Diaz v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 2023 WL 334569, at *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 20, 2023); O’Connor v. RMC, 2023 WL 128720, at *8 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2023).

Southern District: Coleman v. Burger King Corp., No. 22-CV-20925, 2025 WL 1294605, at *8 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2025); Isaac Indus., Inc. v. Petroquimica de Venez., S.A., 2023 WL 3845432, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2023); Craig v. Nova Se. Univ., 2023 WL 3600043, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2023); Sevares v. Am. Pipeline Constr., LLC, 2023 WL 3191256, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2023).

Middle District: Infinity Gen. Constr. Services, Inc. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., No. 6:23-CV-01071-CEM-LHP, 2025 WL 1340660, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 7, 2025); Silk Way W. Airlines, LLC. v. Intrepid Aerospace, Inc., 2023 WL 3791465, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 2, 2023); Magna Tyres USA, LLC, v. Coface N. Am. Ins. Co., 2023 WL 3740093, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2023); E-Telequote Ins., Inc. v. Mayberry, 2023 WL 3568529, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 18, 2023).

Northern District: Vill. Cmty. Ass'n Inc v. S.-Owners Ins. Co., No. 3:23CV16275-TKW-HTC, 2025 WL 868722, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2025); US Iron FLA, LLC v. GMA Garnett (USA) Corp., 1220 F.Supp.3d 1212, 1220 (N.D. Fla. 2023); Ropella Grp., Inc. v. Loparex, LLC, No. 3:22cv6377-TKW-ZCB, 2023 WL 2731700, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2023); Calhoun v. Walden, No. 3:22cv1947-TKW-ZCB, 2023 WL 2820076, at *10 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2023).

FLORIDA STATUTES

§ 86.031, Fla. Stat. (declaratory judgments; construction of contract before or after breach)

REFERENCES

Restatement (First) of Contracts § 312 (1982)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach of Contract

(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 for written contract); § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (four years for oral contract); Schmidt v. Sabow, 331 So. 3d 781, 787 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); see also Gonzalez-Guzman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., No. 17-20107-CIV-GAYLES, 2017 WL 4882512, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2017) (discussing the statute of limitations for written contracts).

(3) Defendant’s obligation to perform under the contract may be excused under the doctrine of commercial frustration when the purposes of the contract, or those which defendant bargained for, have become “frustrated because of the failure of consideration, or impossibility of performance by the other party.’’ See Home Design Center Joint Venture v. County Appliances of Naples, Inc., 563 So. 2d 767, 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Fitness Int’l, LLC v. 93 FLRPT, LLC, 361 So. 3d 914, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023); Hillsborough County v. Star Ins. Co., 847 F.3d 1296, 1305 (11th Cir. 2017).

(4) Duress requires severe pressure or other influence that destroys the defendant’s free will, and forces the defendant to do an act or enter into a contract. See Cooper v. Cooper, 69 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla. 1954); Cableview Commc’ns of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Southeast, LLC, 901 F.3d 1294, 1301 (11th Cir. 2018); M.J.G. v. Graves, 332 So. 3d 1008, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 174-177 (1981).

(5) Statute of Frauds: Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d); see also §§ 672.201, 672.206 (Florida U.C.C.), 678.319 (sale of securities), 680.201 (leasing), 725.01 (payment of another’s debt), Fla. Stat; Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 110, 130 (1981). Walsh v. Abate, 336 So. 3d 50, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Pineda v. Precision Response Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80230 (S.D. Fla. July 22, 2011).

(6) The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that each party act consistently with, and take no actions to frustrate, the contract’s purpose, with the exception that Florida courts will not employ the covenant to negate a contract’s express terms. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 (1981). Share v. Broken Sound Club, Inc., 312 So. 3d 962, 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

(7) Impossibility of performance is a defense to breach of contract when the factual situation renders one party’s performance under the contract impossible. See Home Design Center Joint Venture v. County Appliances of Naples, Inc., 563 So. 2d 767, 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Fitness Int’l, LLC v. 93 FLRPT, LLC, 361 So. 3d 914, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023); Hillsborough County v. Star Ins. Co., 847 F.3d 1296, 1305 (11th Cir. 2017).

(8) Contract enforcement is unconscionable when the contractual term was unreasonable and unfair (substantive unconscionability) at the time the parties entered the contract (procedural unconscionability). See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Cole, 287 So.3d 1272, 1275-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020); Addit, LLC v. Hengesbach, 341 So. 3d 362, 366-67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); 12550 Biscayne Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. NRD Invs., LLC., 336 So. 3d 750, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condo., Inc., 398 So. 2d 865, 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 408 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1981); McAdoo v. New Line Transp., LLC, No. 8:16-cv-1917-T-27AEP, 2017 WL 942114, at *3 (M.D. Fla. March 9, 2017); see also § 672.302, Fla. Stat.; Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 (1981).

(9) Mistake: A party seeking to reform or excuse performance under a written contract must do so by clear and convincing evidence. E.g., BrandMart U.S.A. of W. Palm Beach v. DR Lakes, Inc., 901 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2006); Hogg v. Vills. of Bloomingdale I Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 357 So. 3d 1271, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).

(a) Mutual mistake, which renders a contract voidable when both parties, at the time of making a contract, were mistaken as to a basic assumption of the contract that has a material effect on the parties’ performances under the contract. White v. Fort Myers Beach Fire Control Dist., 302 So. 3d 1064, 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Continental Assur. Co. v. Carroll, 485 So. 2d 406, 409 n.2 (Fla. 1986); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 152 (1981).

(b) Unilateral mistake, which allows a party to void a contract when the party, at the time of making a contract, was mistaken as to a basic assumption of the contract that has a material effect of the parties’ performances which is adverse to the mistaken party. See DePrince v. Starboard Cruises, Inc., 271 So.3d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Contraband Sports, LLC v. Fit Four, LLC, No. 17-24615-Civ-SCOLA/TORRES, 2018 WL 6620902 (S.D. Fla. October 11, 2018); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 153 (1981).

(10) Repudiation: An obligee sued for breach of contract may assert the defense of repudiation when the obligor first repudiated his or her duty of performance. See Southern Crane Rentals, Inc. v. City of Gainesville, 429 So. 2d 771, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); 24 Hr Air Serv., Inc. v. Hosanna Cmty. Baptist Church, Inc., 322 So. 3d 709, 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); City of Bradenton v. Safety Nat’l Casualty Corp., No. 8:17-cv-267-T-33MAP, 2017 WL 2448399, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2017) (explaining the difference between an immediate breach and a repudiation); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 250-257 (1981).

(11) Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent: A defending party’s assertion that a plaintiff has failed to satisfy conditions precedent necessary to trigger contractual duties under an existing agreement is generally viewed as an affirmative defense, for which the defensive pleader has the burden of pleading and persuasion. See Diaz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 189 So. 3d 279, 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Advanced Fla. Med. Grp., Corp. v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 2023 WL 3668684, *2 (Fla. 6th DCA May 26, 2023); Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., LLC, 254 So. 3d 595, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); Harris v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 223 So.3d 1030, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

(12) A contract induced by fraud renders the entire agreement voidable, permitting the aggrieved party to defend a suit on the contract by objecting to its enforcement because it was procured or induced by fraud, however, the defense is lost if the injured party manifests an intention to affirm the contract after acquiring knowledge of the fraud. See Antech Diagnostics, Inc. v. Posner, No. 17-80185-CV, 2018 WL 2298350, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2018).

(13) Consequential damages: Extra-contractual, consequential damages are not available in a first-party breach of insurance contract action; they are, however, available in a separate bad faith action pursuant to § 624.155, Fla. Stat. Covington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 330 So. 3d 943, 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Manor House, LLC, 313 So. 3d 579, 582 (Fla. 2021).

[/MM_Access_Decision]