MEETING MAKERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Meeting Makers, Inc. appealed the trial court's dismissal of its breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims against American Airlines for defective computer equipment and modem leases. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the written contracts' conspicuous warranty disclaimers were valid and enforceable under Florida law, and that Meeting Makers failed to establish the contract was unconscionable.
The warranty disclaimers were valid and enforceable under Florida law, fully complying with statutory requirements. American Airlines' liability was controlled entirely by the contractual limitations. The contract was not an adhesion contract, as Meeting Makers failed to establish unequal bargaining power, having negotiated amendments to the stock form.
[1] A contract's warranty disclaimers are valid under Florida law if they comply with statutory requirements and clearly obviate liability.
[2] A party asserting a claim of unconscionability bears the burden of proving unequal bargaining power.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the warranty disclaimers contained in the contract are valid under Florida law and that these disclaimers clearly obviate American's liability”
States the core holding that the contractual warranty disclaimers are enforceable and eliminate American Airlines' liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMeeting Makers entered into written contracts with American Airlines for the lease of a modem and purchase of a computer system. The contracts contain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Merchantability cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Meeting Makers, Inc., appeals from a final order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice their second amended complaint against American Airlines, Inc., for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. We affirm the order of dismissal upon our finding that the warranty disclaimers contained in the contract are valid under Florida law and that these dis claimers clearly obviate American’s liability.
Meeting Makers had entered into written contracts with American for the lease of a modem and the purchase of a computer system. The contracts contained conspicuous disclaimers of all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.1 The disclaimers fully complied with the requirements of sections 672.-316(2), 672.302, Florida Statutes (1985). The trial court properly dismissed with prejudice Meeting Makers’ second amended complaint against American where American’s liability was controlled entirely by the limitations expressed in the contract. See Earman Oil Co., Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 625 F. 2d 1291 (5th Cir.1980); Hi Neighbor Enter., Inc. v. Burroughs, 492 F.Supp. 823 (N.D.Fla.1980); Rudy’s Glass Constr. Co. v. E.F. Johnson Co., 404 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Meeting Makers’ argument that the contract was one of adhesion and was unenforceable due to unconscionability is without merit. As the party asserting the claim of unconscionability, Meeting Makers bore the burden of proof. Earman Oil, 625 F. 2d at 1299. Meeting Makers completely failed to substantiate its allegations that the parties were of unequal bargaining power. Indeed, the record reveals that several amendments were made to the stock contract offered by American at Meeting Makers’ request, thereby belying the adhesion contract claimed by Meeting Makers.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order is
AFFIRMED.
. The contracts contained the following disclaimers:
Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that Seller will have good and marketable title to any Equipment delivered hereunder. Seller further represents and warrants to Buyer that the Equipment delivered hereunder will be in working order when installed. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH, SELLER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE MATERIAL, WORKMANSHIP OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF THE EQUIPMENT PROVIDED HEREUNDER NOR SHALL SELLER HAVE ANY LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE OR TORT WITH RESPECT TO THE EQUIPMENT. BUYER AGREES THAT SELLER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston, 857 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…seeking to avoid the arbitration provision on the ground of un-conscionability, the burden was on appellee to present evidence sufficient to support that claim. E.g., Complete Interiors, 558 So. 2d at 53; Meeting Makers, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 513 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). That burden encompassed the obligation to prove both procedural and substantive unconscionability. E.g., Bellsouth Mobility, 819 So. 2d at 173; Powertel, 743 So. 2d at 574; Complete Interiors, 558 So. 2d at 52; Steinhardt, 4…
-
Belle Plaza Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. B.C.E. Dev., Inc., 543 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…express warranty granted by B.C.E. to the Association. Moreover, it is equally clear that B.C.E. properly disclaimed by a bold and conspicuous disclaimer any and all express or implied warranties. See Meeting Makers, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 513 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Rudy’s Glass Construction Company v. E.F. Johnson Company, 404 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The trial court correctly granted B.C.E.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Association’s tort claims set out in Counts II and III…
-
Elser v. LAW Offs. OF James M. Russ, P.A., 679 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…the Elsers did not contest the bill within the time proscribed in the contract. We reject this argument because we find that the 10 day waiver clause is unconscionable, and thus is unenforceable. See Meeting Makers, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 513 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).6 The clause states: To the extent that the initial retainer and cost and expense deposit is insufficient to cover the amounts billed, any additional amounts shall be billed to Client and shall be due and payable in Attorney…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Webb Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. Benson Elec., Inc., 404 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Earman OIL Co., Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 625 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Hi Neighbor Enters., Inc. v. Burroughs Corp., 492 F. Supp. 823 (N.D. Fla. 1980)