FAMILY BOATING & MARINE CENTERS OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM T. BELL, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed judgment for breach of contract and warranty claims because the purchase contract contained valid disclaimers of express and implied warranties under section 672.316(2).
A purchase contract that explicitly disclaims warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose in conspicuous language bars recovery for breach of those warranties.
[1] Under Florida Statutes section 672.316(2), a seller may disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability if the disclaimer mentions merchantability and is conspicuous, an…
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 intelligenceWilliam Bell purchased a new pontoon boat from Family Boating & Marine Centers of Florida, Inc., and later sued for breach of contract and breach of i…
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 Disclaimer Of Warranties cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
William Bell purchased a new pontoon boat from Family Boating & Marine Centers of Florida, Inc.. He later recovered a judgment against Family Boating for breach of contract and breach of implied warranties, stemming from his dissatisfaction with the paint applied to the pontoons on the boat. We reverse the judgment because Bell’s purchase contract explicitly disclaimed any express warranty from the seller, including any implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. See McCormick Machinery, Inc. v. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 523 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Rudy’s Glass Constr. Co. v. E.F. Johnson Co., 404 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Section 672.316(2), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that in order to exclude the warranty of merchantability, the language must mention merchantability and the writing must be conspicuous. To exclude a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, the language must express that there are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face of the agreement. In this case, paragraph 9 of the purchase contract expressly and explicitly disclaimed both a warranty of merchantability and a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and direct that judgment be entered for Family Boating in accordance with its motion for directed verdict at trial.
PARKER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Webb Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. Benson Elec., Inc., 404 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- McCORMICK Mach., Inc. v. Julian E. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 523 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)