TEDDY RAY FRYATT AND PHILLIPS INVENTORY SER., APPELLANTS,
v.
LANTANA ONE, LTD., 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.
In this commercial dispute over a defective computer system, the Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of $22,000 in damages for the purchase price but reversed the award of an additional $10,000 for an employee's time spent attempting to repair the system, holding that such damages are not recoverable under the Uniform Commercial Code when no actual expense or loss was incurred.
The court held that a buyer is entitled to the purchase price paid when rightfully revoking acceptance, but is not entitled to damages for an employee's time spent attempting repairs when no additional expense or actual loss was incurred. Incidental and consequential damages under the UCC are limited to expenses reasonably incurred or foreseeable losses actually suffered.
[1] A buyer who rightfully revokes acceptance of goods is entitled to recover the purchase price paid.
[2] Damages for lost time of an employee in attempting to rectify defective goods are not recoverable where the employee's salary was paid and no additional expense or loss w…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Where the buyer rightfully revokes acceptance, the buyer is entitled to the purchase price that has been paid.”
Establishes the primary remedy for wrongful goods—return of purchase price under UCC § 672.711(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sold a computer system to appellee for three retail outlet stores for a total price of $22,000. The system did not function properly, and t…
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 Revocation Of Acceptance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Teddy Ray Fryatt and Phillips Inventory Services, Inc., seek review of the trial court’s final judgment finding in favor of appellee, Lantana One, Ltd., on four causes of action. We affirm as to the first three issues on appeal without discussion. As to the final issue on appeal, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court strike from the final judg ment the $10,000 damages awarded as lost time for appellee’s employee.
Appellee purchased a computer system, which did not function properly, for his retail outlet stores from appellants.
The trial court properly found that appel-lee rightfully revoked acceptance of the computer system. Where the buyer rightfully revokes acceptance, the buyer is entitled to the purchase price that has been paid. § 672.711(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Trial testimony revealed that appellee purchased the computer system from the appellants for three of its stores for a total price of $22,000.
Thus, the trial court properly awarded damages of $22,000. See § 672.711(1), Fla. Stat.
However, the trial court erred in awarding appellee an additional $10,000 in damages as a “reward” for the efforts of Francine Armstrong, an employee of appellee, in attempting to get the system operating properly. A buyer is entitled to incidental damages, which include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation, and care and custody of rightfully rejected goods, and consequential damages, which include any foreseeable and unavoidable loss resulting from the breach. § 672.715(1),(2), Fla. Stat. (2002).
Here, however, the trial court found that appellee incurred no expense in attempting to get the system installed and operating properly. Because Mrs. Armstrong received a salary from appellee for her work, appellee did not incur additional cost for Mrs. Armstrong’s labor.
Nevertheless, Mrs. Armstrong determined that she contributed approximately $10,000 worth of her services to working on the system. Mrs. Armstrong testified that employee productivity was affected, but she did not explain how productivity was affected and whether appel-lee incurred a loss as a result thereof.
Moreover, appellee did not make a claim of lost sales or profits due to the system errors. Because appellee did not incur any additional expense, or suffer a loss, as a result of Mrs. Armstrong’s efforts to get the system operating properly, appellee is not entitled to damages for Mrs. Armstrong’s efforts. See § 672.715(1),(2), Fla. Stat.
Accordingly, the trial court’s final judgment is reversed only as to the $10,000 in damages awarded for Mrs. Armstrong’s “lost time,” and the cause is remanded with instructions for the trial court to strike this damages provision.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
BOOTH, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jauregui v. Bobb's Piano Sales & Serv., Inc., 922 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ike the offending piano retains the option to claim either the difference in value or, as plaintiff clearly did in this case, in effect, to cancel the deal and get his money back. See §§ 672.711, .714, Fla. Stat. (2005); Fryatt v. Lantana One, Ltd., 866 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Winterbotham v. Computer Corps, Inc., 490 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Royco, Inc. v. Cottengim, 427 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 431 So. 2d 989 (Fla.1983); Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc., 372 So. 2d at 96…