Case Name: HAWKE DISTRIBUTING, INC., Appellant, v. NUEVO SOL PARTNERS, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-03-12
Citations: 689 So. 2d 1202
Docket Number: No. 96-2176
Parties: HAWKE DISTRIBUTING, INC., Appellant, v. NUEVO SOL PARTNERS, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 689
Pages: 1202–1202

Head Matter:
HAWKE DISTRIBUTING, INC., Appellant, v. NUEVO SOL PARTNERS, INC., Appellee.
No. 96-2176.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 12, 1997.
Lidsky & Vaccaro and Charles L. Vaccaro, Hialeah, for appellant.
Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. and Howard M. Camerik and Norman A. Fleisher, Miami, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and GREEN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Based upon the unrefuted record evidence below that the appellant purchased and retained 390 video disc players from appellee and later shipped a portion of the same overseas for resale to a third party purchaser, the trial court properly determined that appellant had accepted this merchandise within the meaning of Florida's version of the Uniform Commercial Code as codified in section 672.606(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). The appellant's act of reselling, or attempting to resell, the allegedly nonconforming merchandise purchased from the appellee is deemed an acceptance as a matter of law because it is an act inconsistent with the appellee's ownership of the same. § 672.606(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1993); Golden Needles Knitting and Glove Co., Inc. v. Dynamic Marketing Enters., Inc., 766 F.Supp. 421 (W.D.N.C.1991) (construing Chapter 672, Fla.Stat.); see also Commonwealth Propane Co. v. Petrosol Int'l, Inc., 818 F.2d 522, 527-28 (6th Cir.1987); Lorenzo Banfi di Banfi Renzo & Co. v. Davis Congress Shops, Inc., 568 F.Supp. 432, 433-34 (N.D.Ill.1983). Having thus accepted merchandise from the appellee, the appellant was obligated to pay the contract rate for the same. § 672.607(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). Accordingly, we find that summary judgment was properly entered in favor of appellee.
Affirmed.