Case Name: GULFWIND SOUTH, INC., d/b/a Gulfwind Marine, Appellant, v. Harriet JONES, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-05-12
Citations: 775 So. 2d 311
Docket Number: No. 2D99-677
Parties: GULFWIND SOUTH, INC., d/b/a Gulfwind Marine, Appellant, v. Harriet JONES, Appellees.
Judges: ALTENBERND, A.C.J., Concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 775
Pages: 311–314

Head Matter:
GULFWIND SOUTH, INC., d/b/a Gulfwind Marine, Appellant, v. Harriet JONES, Appellees.
No. 2D99-677.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 12, 2000.
Gregory A. Anderson and John J. Glenn of Anderson St. Denis & Glenn, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
Edward K. Cheffy, of Cheffy, Passido-mo, Wilson & Johnson, Naples, for Appel-lee.

Opinion:
DAVIS, Judge.
Gulfwind South, Inc., d/b/a Gulfwind Marine, a boat dealership, appeals a final judgment in favor of Harriet Jones, in which the trial court ruled that Jones and her husband validly revoked acceptance of a boat she purchased from Gulfwind. The trial court's final judgment ordered Gulf-wind to return to Jones the purchase price of the boat, plus interest. Because the trial court's express and implicit findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent, we reverse the trial court's final judgment and remand for a new trial.
In May 1995, Harriet Jones purchased a high performance boat for her husband from Gulfwind. After a year of continuous problems and attempted repairs, the Joneses revoked their acceptance of the boat and demanded either a new boat or the return of their money. When Gulf-wind refused to return the purchase price, Harriet Jones filed suit against Gulfwind and the manufacturer, Sea Ray. The amended complaint included six counts: (1) revocation of acceptance, (2) breach of express warranty, (3) breach of contract, (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (5) deceptive advertising, and (6) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case proceeded to a two-day bench trial. Curiously, the trial court ruled in favor of the dealer and the manufacturer on Counts Two through Six, but determined that Jones justifiedly and timely revoked his acceptance. Gulfwind appeals this order.
Before Jones could legally revoke acceptance, she had to show that the boat was "nonconforming," and that the nonconformity "substantially impaired" the boat's value. See § 672.608, Fla. Stat. (1995). Additionally, Jones had to demonstrate that the dealer had the opportunity to cure the defects, but failed to do so "seasonably," and that Jones revoked her acceptance within a "reasonable time." See id. The trial court found a specific nonconformity, that is, defective engines, which substantially impaired the boat's value:
There was never a time when the boat, while in Plaintiffs possession, was running in a way in which Plaintiff would be able to enjoy it because of the problems with both of the engines.... The court finds that the essential purpose for which Plaintiff purchased the boat was entirely frustrated by the condition of the engines.
However, Gulfwind argues that through its rulings on Counts Two through Six, the trial court impliedly made certain findings of fact that require the reversal as to Count One. We agree.
A seller ordinarily tenders conforming goods to the buyer when the goods are in accordance with the terms of a contract. See Frank Griffin Volkswagen, Inc. v. Smith, 610 So.2d 597, 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Similarly, before a buyer can elect to revoke acceptance, he or she must demonstrate a nonconformity to some provision in the contract, or nonconformity to a warranty, to which the goods must conform. See McCormick Machinery, Inc. v. Julian E. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 523 So.2d 651, 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
Herein lies the trial court's inconsistent judgment. When the trial court ruled in favor of Gulfwind on Counts Two, Three, and Four, it necessarily made one of two implicit findings: (1) no contractual or warranty provision existed to set the standard for conformity, or (2) the facts did not show a breach of a standard for conformity. On the other hand, before the trial court could find a valid revocation of acceptance, it had to find that there was, in fact, a contractual or warranty provision setting a standard of conformity, and the facts demonstrated nonconformity with that standard. Thus, the trial court's ruling on Count One directly conflicts with its rulings on Counts Two, Three, and Four.
Although the trial court's final judgment outlines a nonconformity, that is, the boat's engines, it does not make a specific finding as to where it found a contractual or warranty provision which sets the standard for conformity. If Jones proved the existence of such a contractual or warranty provision, then the trial court erroneously denied relief as to either Counts Two, Three, or Four. If, on the other hand, the record fails to support the finding that such a provision existed, then the trial court's ruling on Count One is in error. With this inconsistency, we cannot affirm the trial court's final judgment. Since the trial court's final judgment necessarily relies on these crucial findings of fact, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a new trial. See Ashby Div. of Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Dobkin, 458 So.2d 335, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., Concurs.
BLUE, J., Dissents with opinion.