POWER SKI OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, 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.
Power Ski of Florida, a remote purchaser of outboard watercraft, sued Allied Chemical Corporation for breach of implied warranty when a filling substance (PFR-23) abnormally expanded in sunlight and damaged the pontoons. The court reversed summary judgment, holding that lack of direct privity is no longer a bar to implied warranty claims.
The court held that lack of direct privity is no longer a necessary prerequisite to a breach of implied warranty case, and reversed the summary judgment to allow the case to proceed to trial.
“It' is admitted by the plaintiff that it was not in direct privity with the manufacturer. However, it contends that pursuant to the decisions in Continental Copper & Steel Indus. v. E. C. "Red" Cornelius, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 40; Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 362, this is no longer a necessary prerequisite to a breach of implied warranty case. We agree”
Establishes the core holding that privity is no longer required for implied warranty claims
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePower Ski manufactured and sold outboard watercraft (power skis) with fiberglass pontoon shells filled with a substance supplied by Allied Chemical th…
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 Implied Warranty cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Allied Chemical Corporation, in a suit for damages allegedly arising out of a breach of an implied warranty. The appellant, a remote ultimate purchaser, sought to recover property damage from the manufacturer of a component part of the purchased product, which is neither a foodstuff nor a dangerous instrumentality.
The appellant manufactured, assembled and sold outboard powered watercraft under the trade name of Power Ski. This craft consisted of two fiberglass pontoon shells filled with a substance and covered by a metal deck. The defendant, Eubanks Industries, Inc., pursuant to a contract with the appellant, manufactured the pontoons for the power skis. The defendant, Allied Chemical Corporation, through its exclusive distributor [Southern Resin and Fiberglass Co.], furnished Eubanks with a substance [PFR-23] which was used to fill the fiberglass pontoon shells. The defendant, Allied Chemical Corporation, through its distributor furnished technical data sheets, stating that PFR-23 would not expand at *14temperatures up to 200°. The appellant alleges that Eubanks stored and mixed the substance properly and incorporated it into the pontoons properly. Nevertheless, the substance abnormally expanded about one-quarter of an inch on exposure to warm sunlight, after the appellant’s power skis had been furnished to customers. This expansion burst apart the pontoons, rendering the power skis unfit for use. The customers returned the power skis and the appellant brought this action for the resulting damages.
Several facts are in controversy, such as whether Allied Chemical knew of the tendency of the product to expand in the sunlight; whether it knew the product would be used for the purposes for which it was used; and whether it was mixed correctly by Eubanks Industries, among other allegations.
It' is admitted by the plaintiff that it was not in direct privity with the manufacturer. However, it contends that pursuant to the decisions in Continental Copper & Steel Indus. v. E. C. “Red” Cornelius, Inc., Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 40; Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 362, this is no longer a necessary prerequisite to a breach of implied warranty case. We agree, and reverse the matter for a trial on the issues as made by the pleadings.
Of course, a crucial issue to be determined will be whether or not the ingredients supplied by the manufacturer were compounded in accordance with directions. Certainly a manufacturer should not be liable for a product which fails because it was improperly compounded, mishandled or misused.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the summary final judgment here under review is hereby reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manheim v. Ford Motor Co., 201 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1967)…d Steel Industries, Inc., v. E. C. “Red” Cornelius, Inc., Fla.App., 104 So. 2d 40; Cliett v. Lauderdale Biltmore Corp., Fla., 39 So. 2d 476; Matthews v. Lawnlite Co., Fla., 88 So. 2d 299; and Power Ski of Florida, Inc., v. Allied Chemical, Fla.App., 188 So. 2d 13. We call attention particularly to the concurring opinion of Judge Carroll of the District Court in this cause. From the rule of law emerging from the cited Florida cases and the rule of law already adopted in other jurisdictions, we conclude that…
-
Fla. Ecological Corp. v. E. Z. Distrib. Co., Inc., 45 Fla. Supp. 156 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1977)…ourt also finds it unnecessary to discuss the direct lack of privity between F. E. C. and W. D. R. as privity is no longer a necessary prerequisite in a breach of implied warranty situation. Power Ski of Florida, Inc. v. Allied Chemical Corporation, 188 So. 2d 13 (Fla. App. 1966); Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip Corporation, 177 So. 2d 362 (Fla. App. 1965). Conclusion It is ordered and adjudged that this court finds W. D. R. liable to E. Z. in Case No. 75-35170. It is further ordered and adjudged that this court…
-
J.D. Corp. v. Wartman, 571 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see also Thursby v. Reynolds Metals Co., 466 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 676 (Fla.1985); Clark v. Boeing Co., 395 So. 2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Power Ski of Fla., Inc. v. Allred Chem. Corp., 188 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cont'l Copper & Steel Indus., Inc. v. E. C. "RED" Cornelius, Inc., 104 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Bertram Yacht Yard, Inc. v. Fla. Wire & Rigging Works, Inc., 177 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Bernstein v. Lily-Tulip CUP Corp., 177 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)