INTERGRAPH CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN E. STEARMAN AND JOHN E. STEARMAN, P.A., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS; JOHN E. STEARMAN AND JOHN E. STEARMAN, P.A., APPELLANTS, V. WILLIAM A. HESSINGER, 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.
The court held that a corporate entity (Stearman P.A.) lacked privity to recover damages for breach of express warranties on a computer system it did not purchase.
John E. Stearman, P.A. sued Intergraph Corporation for misrepresentation and breach of warranties regarding a computer system. The trial court awarded…
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 Breach Of Express Warranty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By these consolidated appeals and a cross-appeal, we are asked to review a final judgment against Intergraph Corporation awarding compensatory and punitive damages to John E. Stearman and John E. Stearman, P.A., in a suit brought by them for misrepresentation and breach of warranties with respect to the capabilities of a computer system sold by Intergraph to John E. Stearman.
We find that the award of compensatory damages to Stearman P.A. in the amount of $34,000 for breach of express warranties cannot stand because there was a complete absence of privity between Stearman P.A. and the seller of the computer system, In-tergraph. Privity is required in order to recover damages from the seller of a product for breach of express or implied warranties. Brown v. Hall, 221 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). See also Affiliates for Evaluation & Therapy, Inc. v. Viasyn Corp., 500 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), approved, Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37 (Fla.1988).
Accordingly, we reverse that part of the final judgment awarding compensatory damages to John E. Stearman, P.A., in the amount of $34,000 for breach of express warranties. We affirm as to all other issues raised by these appeals and the cross-appeal.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…nding, in ordér to recover for the breach of a warranty either express or implied, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract with the defendant. See T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D.Fla.1995); Intergraph Corp. v. Stearman, 555 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (privity is required in order to recover damages from the seller of a product for breach of express or implied warranties). Weiss’s argument that he falls within the UCC’s definition of “buyer” as someone who buys or contracts to…
-
Stearman v. Intergraph Corp., 585 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…e consideration by the trial judge of Stear-man’s motions to tax costs and for attorney’s fee sanctions. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. THREADGILL and PARKER, JJ., concur. . Intergraph Corp. v. Stearman, 555 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).…
-
T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Fla. 1995)…520 So.2d 37 (Fla.1988); West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla.1976). “Privity is required in order to recover damages from the seller of a product for breach of express or implied warranties.” Intergraph Corp. v. Stearman, 555 So.2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). “A warranty, whether express or implied, is fundamentally a contract. A contract cause of action requires privity.” Elizabeth N. v. Riverside Group, Inc., 585 So.2d 376, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also Spolski Ge…
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
- Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1988)
- Affiliates FOR Evaluation & Therapy, Inc. v. Viasyn Corp., 500 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Brown v. Hall, 221 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)