[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-11357

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 5:09-cv-00373-WTH-TBS

DELTA RF TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff-Counter 

Defendant-Appellant,

versus

RIIMIC, LLC, 

a Florida limited liability corporation, 

d.b.a. Sunair Electronics,

Defendant-Counter 

Claimant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(August 5, 2013)

Before MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and EDENFIELD,

* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

 * Honorable B. Avant Edenfield, United States District Judge for the Southern District of 

Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 12-11357 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Delta RF Technology, Inc. (Delta) appeals the district court’s entry of 

judgment in favor of RIIMIC, LLC (Sunair) following a four-day bench trial. This 

case arises from a contract obligating Delta to manufacture high-powered radio 

amplifiers for Sunair. Although Delta contracted with Sunair for production of the 

amplifiers, the goods were ultimately to be delivered to Sunair’s customer, Simave. 

Sunair refused to pay Delta for two of the units because, after installation, the 

amplifiers overheated and caused the radios to fail. Delta subsequently brought a 

breach of contract claim against Sunair; Sunair denied the alleged breach and filed 

counterclaims against Delta. The district court entered judgment for Sunair. On 

appeal, Delta raises the following issues: (1) whether the district court erred in 

finding that Simave’s acceptance of the radios was a condition precedent to 

payment by Sunair, (2) whether the district court erred in finding that design 

defects in the amplifiers caused the radios to fail, and (3) whether the district court 

erred in concluding Delta breached its express warranty against manufacturer’s 

defects.

1

 After review and having had the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the 

district court.2

 1 Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that Sunair’s payments to Delta 

were conditioned upon payment by Simave, Delta’s argument that Sunair accepted the amplifiers 

is irrelevant. 

2 Delta also argues, citing International Engineering Services, Inc. v. Scherer 

Construction & Engineering of Central Florida, LLC, 74 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), that 

the district court erroneously shifted the entire risk of loss to Delta. Delta did not present this 

case to the district court before it entered its findings and conclusions, even though Delta had an 

Case: 12-11357 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

Standard of Review

Following a bench trial, we review the district court’s findings of fact for 

clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. A.I.G. Uruguay Compania de 

Seguros, S.A. v. AAA Cooper Transp., 334 F.3d 997, 1003 (11th Cir. 2003). “Clear 

error is a highly deferential standard of review,” Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile

Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted), 

and the standard “plainly does not entitle a reviewing court to reverse the finding 

of the trier of fact simply because it is convinced that it would have decided the 

case differently,” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985).

Issue One

The district court found that “all of the contract documents (as well as the 

other evidence presented at trial) ma[de] it clear that payment by Simave was a 

condition precedent to payment by Sunair . . . to Delta.” Delta argues this finding 

was erroneous.

We have reviewed the contract documents and the record, and we conclude 

that the evidence supports the district court’s finding. For instance, one of the 

contract documents, purchase order BO-361, stated that payment was due either 

after “delivery to customer,” or “customer acceptance,” whichever occurred first. 

Although Delta claims “customer” did not refer to Simave, it is clear from the 

 

opportunity to do so. Regardless, International Engineering is a construction law case and Delta 

has offered no compelling justification for applying its reasoning here.

Case: 12-11357 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

record that the parties used the term “customer” interchangeably with the term 

“Sunair’s customer” to refer to Simave. Another contract document, purchase 

order 223, also conditioned payment to Delta upon receipt of funds from Simave. 

Accordingly, under our deferential standard of review, we cannot say the district 

court’s finding was clearly erroneous. See Morrissette-Brown, 506 F.3d at 1319.

Issue Two

Delta next contends the district court erred in finding that the proximate 

cause of the radios’ failure was a design defect, rather than shipping damage. 

The record, however, supports the district court’s finding. There was an 

abundance of evidence presented at trial that the amplifiers had overheating issues, 

and that those issues were caused by the amplifiers’ improper design. While there 

was also evidence that the units could have been damaged during shipping, which 

the district court acknowledged, Sunair demonstrated that the defect was most 

likely caused by design flaws, especially since the overheating problems 

manifested before shipping. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in 

finding that defects in the amplifiers caused the radios to fail.

Issue Three

Delta’s final argument is that its warranty against manufacturing defects and 

construction defects did not cover the damage sustained by the units. 

Case: 12-11357 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

Delta’s argument is meritless. Sunair’s breach of express warranty claim 

was based on purchase order BO-361, which stated that the amplifiers “would meet 

or exceed performance spec[ifications]” as set forth in the proposal and the 

“NATO Solicitation.” The evidence before the district court established that the 

units did not meet these specifications. Accordingly, the district court did not err 

in concluding that Delta breached its warranty, and that the warranty was not 

effectively disclaimed in the contract documents.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s entry of judgment in 

favor of Sunair.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-11357 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 5 of 5