Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Buss Aluminum Products, Inc. v. Alumflo, Inc.
Citations: 722 So. 2d 269; 38 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 76; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15897; 1998 WL 879145Docket: No. 97-04832
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 17, 1998; Florida; State Appellate Court
Buss Aluminum Products, Inc. (Buss) appeals a final judgment awarding Alumflo, Inc. (Alumflo) $45,100.00 for breach of a lease/purchase agreement and breach of warranties. The appellate court reverses the portion of the judgment related to breach of warranties. Alumflo's amended complaint included claims for fraud, breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, against Buss as the supplier of used aluminum fabricating equipment. A separate fraud claim was also filed against American Capital Leasing, Inc., but that matter is not part of this appeal. Following a nonjury trial, the trial court ruled in favor of Alumflo on the fraud claim and the two warranty claims, awarding $37,974.55 for fraud and $7,125.46 for the warranty claims, totaling $45,100.00. Buss appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in favoring Alumflo on the fraud count. The appellate court finds no error in the fraud ruling and affirms the $37,974.55 award. Regarding the warranty claims, the court noted that the trial court combined the damages for the breach of implied warranty of merchantability and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Alumflo conceded that the evidence did not support a breach of warranty for a particular purpose. The trial court failed to specify how the $7,125.46 award was allocated between the two claims, leading to an erroneous award. The appellate court reverses the judgment regarding breach of warranty for a particular purpose and the $7,125.46 award, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine the correct damages for the breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The appellate court affirms the final judgment in all other respects.