HAWKE DISTRIBUTING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
NUEVO SOL PARTNERS, 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.
Appellant's resale of video disc players constituted acceptance under Florida's UCC, obligating payment at the contract rate despite alleged nonconformity.
An act of reselling or attempting to resell merchandise is deemed acceptance as a matter of law because it is inconsistent with the seller's ownership.
[1] Under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code, a buyer's act of reselling or attempting to resell merchandise constitutes acceptance as a matter of law because such conduct is…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 appellant's act of reselling, or attempting to resell, the allegedly nonconforming merchandise purchased from the appellee is deemed an acceptance as a matter of law because it is an act inconsistent with the appellee's ownership of the same.”
Court's explanation of why resale constitutes acceptance under UCC
Appellant purchased and retained 390 video disc players from appellee and later shipped a portion overseas for resale to a third party.…
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 Acceptance Of Goods cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Based upon the unrefuted record evidence below that the appellant purchased and retained 390 video disc players from appellee and later shipped a portion of the same overseas for resale to a third party purchaser, the trial court properly determined that appellant had accepted this merchandise within the meaning of Florida’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code as codified in section 672.606(1), Fla.Stat. (1993).
The appellant’s act of reselling, or attempting to resell, the allegedly nonconforming merchandise purchased from the appellee is deemed an acceptance as a matter of law because it is an act inconsistent with the appellee’s ownership of the same. § 672.606(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1993); Golden Needles Knitting and Glove Co., Inc. v. Dynamic Marketing Enters., Inc., 766 F.Supp. 421 (W.D.N.C.1991) (construing Chapter 672, Fla.Stat.); see also Commonwealth Propane Co. v. Petrosol Int'l, Inc., 818 F. 2d 522, 527-28 (6th Cir.1987); Lorenzo Banfi di Banfi Renzo & Co. v. Davis Congress Shops, Inc., 568 F.Supp. 432, 433-34 (N.D.Ill.1983).
Having thus accepted merchandise from the appellee, the appellant was obligated to pay the contract rate for the same. § 672.607(1), Fla.Stat. (1993).
Accordingly, we find that summary judgment was properly entered in favor of appellee.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freeman v. State, 717 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ergeant] because he is a truthful man,” “If you think this officer is going to compromise his ethics,” and “this officer would not come in this courtroom and lie to you” were patently improper and deprived defendant of fair trial); Buckner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding prosecutor’s comments that jury would find police officer “very credible” and that he told the truth on the stand were improper but a new trial was not warranted when comments were examined in totality); Davis v. State, 6…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 906 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…e. The appellant asserts that this argument improperly bolstered this witness’s testimony on behalf of the State. See Lewis v. State, 780 So. 2d 125, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Fryer v. State, 693 So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Buckner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1202, 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Cisneros v. State, 678 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The record, however, reflects that this argument was made during rebuttal by the [*1091] State in response to an argument made by the defense regarding Detective…
-
Lewis v. State, 780 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…opardize -their careers, their families, place their livelihood on the line? For what? This type of argument has been repeatedly held to constitute improper bolstering. See Fryer v. State, 693 So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Buckner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Cisneros v. State, 678 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Davis v. State, 663 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Garrette v. State, 501 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Landry v. State, 620 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Blackburn v…
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
- Commonwealth Propane Co. v. Petrosol Int'l, Inc., 818 F.2d 522 (6th Cir. 1987)