BEEDE ELEGTRICAL INSTRUMENT COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
K.E.S., INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1983-06-21
No. 82-2349
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARK-DULL and NESBITT, JJ.
433 So. 2d 59 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

There is an implied warranty that a product will be suitable for the purpose for which it is purchased. When the evidence discloses that this is not the case, the purchaser has a right to recover his damages occasioned by the use of the product. Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1972); In Be Estate of Yohn, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1970); Smith v. Burdine’s Inc., 144 Fla. 500, 198 So. 223 (1940); Medlin v. Rucks, 397 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Chrysler Corporation v. Miller, 310 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Arcade Steam Laundry v. Bass, 159 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Section 672.315 Florida Statutes (1977).

The final judgment here under review is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman, 470 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
    …the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.” See Beede Electrical Instrument Co. v. K.E.S., Inc., 433 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). . Robert Jones testified that he became aware of the engine problems in October-November 1975. Richard Jones testified that he learned of difficulties in November/December 1975-Janu-ary 1976. . The "relation-back” approach of S…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw