Faro Blanco Marine Resort, Inc. v. Key Leasing, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Faro Blanco Marine Resort, Inc. v. Key Leasing, Inc.

510 So. 2d 1055, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1826, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9578

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2871

StatusPublished

This text of 510 So. 2d 1055 (Faro Blanco Marine Resort, Inc. v. Key Leasing, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Faro Blanco Marine Resort, Inc. v. Key Leasing, Inc., 510 So. 2d 1055, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1826, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9578 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A description of equipment in a lease, which serves merely to identify, does not create an implied or expressed warranty that the product will perform to the customer’s satisfaction. Transmerica Leasing Corp. v. Van’s Realty Co., 91 Idaho 510, 427 P.2d 284 (1967). Where the equipment proved defective and the lease provided that the lessor’s only obligation was to deliver the equipment “AS IS” and that any claims “FOR DEFECTS IN THE EQUIPMENT WILL BE AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE EQUIPMENT OR AGAINST THE SUPPLIER” and the supplier was identified in the lease, the lessee’s recourse was against the manufacturer/supplier and not against the lease financier.

The remaining points are without merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

A description of equipment in a lease, which serves merely to identify, does not create an implied or expressed warranty that the product will perform to the customer’s satisfaction. Transmerica Leasing Corp. v. Van’s Realty Co., 91 Idaho 510, 427 P.2d 284 (1967). Where the equipment proved defective and the lease provided that the lessor’s only obligation was to deliver the equipment “AS IS” and that any claims “FOR DEFECTS IN THE EQUIPMENT WILL BE AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER OF THE EQUIPMENT OR AGAINST THE SUPPLIER” and the supplier was identified in the lease, the lessee’s recourse was against the manufacturer/supplier and not against the lease financier.

The remaining points are without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 So. 2d 1055, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1826, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faro-blanco-marine-resort-inc-v-key-leasing-inc-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack