[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff purchased a product;
2. The defendant at the time of contracting had reason to know the particular purpose for which the buyer purchased the product;
3. Plaintiff relied on the defendant’s judgment in providing a suitable product;
4. The product failed to be fit for its particular purpose; and
5. 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. The defendant at the time of contracting had reason to know the particular purpose for which the buyer purchased the product;
3. Plaintiff relied on the defendant’s judgment in providing a suitable product;
4. The product failed to be fit for its particular purpose; and
5. 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

Third District: R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So.2d 60, 65 n.7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Fourth District: Dunham-Bush, Inc. v. Thermo-Air Serv., Inc., 351 So. 2d 351, 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1211 (1978).

Fifth District: Light v. Weldarc Co., Inc., 569 So.2d 1302, 1305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); First New England Fin. Corp v. Woffard, 421 So.2d 590, 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

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

Middle District: Continental 332 Fund, LLC v. Albertelli, No. 2:17-cv-41-FtM-38MRM, 2018 WL 839318, at *7 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2018) (discussing breach of  implied warranties of fitness and merchantability in a construction context);  Armadillo Distrib. Enters., Inc. v. Hai Yun Musical Instruments Manufacture Co. Ltd., 142 F. Supp. 3d 1245, 1254 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

Southern District: PR Overseas Boating, Ltd. v. Talaria Co., LLC, 2022 WL 1238999, *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2022); Plain Bay Sales, LLC v. Gallaher, 2022 WL 409577, *12-14 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2022); Zendejas v. Redman, No. 15-81229-CIV-MARRA, 2016 WL 1242349 at *4 (S.D. Fla. March 30, 2016); Barnext Offshore, Ltd. v. Ferretti Grp. USA, Inc., No. 10–23869–CIV., 2012 WL 1570057, at *12 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2012).

FLORIDA STATUTES

§ 672.315, Fla. Stat.

---

2 Defenses to Claim for  Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose

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

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(c),(e), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) Federal and state courts disagree on the issue 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 to recover for breach of express and implied warranties. See Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 1988).

(4) Plaintiff/buyer must notify defendant/seller within a reasonable time after he or she discovers, or should have discovered, the breach. § 672.607(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

(5) Conspicuous disclaimers written in plain language are a defense to breach of warranty claims. § 672.316(3)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat.; see also Parson v. Motor Homes of America, Inc., 465 So. 2d 1285, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

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

(7) 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.

(8) A military contractor is saved from liability when the contractor (a) had no or minimal input in the design of the product, or warned the military of the product’s risks and notified the military of alternative designs then reasonably known by the contractor, and (b) the military authorized the contractor to proceed despite the product’s dangerous design. Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 513 So. 2d 1265, 1269 (Fla. 1987).

(9) “When a buyer has examined goods before entering into the contract or has refused to examine the goods, there is no implied warranty with respect to defects that the examination should have revealed.” See J.D.I. Holdings, LLC v. Jet Management, Inc., 732 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1228 (N.D. Fla. 2010).

[/MM_Access_Decision]