Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
B.P. Development and Management Corp. v. P. Lafer Enterprises
Florida District Court of Appeal
538 So. 2d 1379 (1989)
In B.P. Development and Management versus P. Lafer Enterprises, we'll see whether a buyer who used non conforming goods will be found to have accepted the goods under the uniform commercial code or UCC.
B.P. Development and Management contracted with P. Lafer Enterprises to buy Christmas decorations that B.P. would display throughout a mall during the holiday season. The decorations cost over forty eight thousand dollars, which B.P. could pay in three installments.
B.P. made the first payment when Lafer delivered the decorations before Thanksgiving in nineteen eighty six. B.P. was dissatisfied with the quality of the decorations that Lafer delivered.
B.P. employees stated that the decorations weren't worth the money that BP paid for the decorations.
However, B.P. displayed the decorations throughout the mall because it needed to put up decorations the day after thanksgiving, and it was virtually impossible for B.P. to find substitute decorations to display during the holiday season.
In December of nineteen eighty six, B.P. notified Lafer that the products weren't of suitable quality, and B.P. attempted to negotiate a lower price for the declarations.
Lafer refused to renegotiate the price, and BP didn't make its remaining two payments.
In April of nineteen eighty seven, Lafer sued B.P. for breach of contract, quantum merit, and civil theft. B.P. filed a counterclaim and sought to rescind the contract.
Both parties moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted Lafer's motion for summary judgment. After the court granted Lafer's motion, B.P. filed a motion to amend its counterclaim to seek damages for the nonconforming goods. The court denied B.P.'s motion.
B.P. appealed.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/b-p-development-and-management-corp-v-p-lafer-enterprises
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/b-p-development-and-management-corp-v-p-lafer-enterprises
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
B.P. Development and Management Corp. v. P. Lafer Enterprises
Florida District Court of Appeal
538 So. 2d 1379 (1989)
In B.P. Development and Management versus P. Lafer Enterprises, we'll see whether a buyer who used non conforming goods will be found to have accepted the goods under the uniform commercial code or UCC.
B.P. Development and Management contracted with P. Lafer Enterprises to buy Christmas decorations that B.P. would display throughout a mall during the holiday season. The decorations cost over forty eight thousand dollars, which B.P. could pay in three installments.
B.P. made the first payment when Lafer delivered the decorations before Thanksgiving in nineteen eighty six. B.P. was dissatisfied with the quality of the decorations that Lafer delivered.
B.P. employees stated that the decorations weren't worth the money that BP paid for the decorations.
However, B.P. displayed the decorations throughout the mall because it needed to put up decorations the day after thanksgiving, and it was virtually impossible for B.P. to find substitute decorations to display during the holiday season.
In December of nineteen eighty six, B.P. notified Lafer that the products weren't of suitable quality, and B.P. attempted to negotiate a lower price for the declarations.
Lafer refused to renegotiate the price, and BP didn't make its remaining two payments.
In April of nineteen eighty seven, Lafer sued B.P. for breach of contract, quantum merit, and civil theft. B.P. filed a counterclaim and sought to rescind the contract.
Both parties moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted Lafer's motion for summary judgment. After the court granted Lafer's motion, B.P. filed a motion to amend its counterclaim to seek damages for the nonconforming goods. The court denied B.P.'s motion.
B.P. appealed.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/b-p-development-and-management-corp-v-p-lafer-enterprises
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/b-p-development-and-management-corp-v-p-lafer-enterprises
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
