Cases from cite.case.law:

TM WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC. v. ALL COMMERCE, INC., 246 So. 3d 541 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . See § 672.201(1), Fla. . . .

BRANCH BANKING TRUST CO. OF VIRGINIA, v. M Y BEOWULF, No., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . definition of “goods” contained in § 672.105, the statute of frauds provided in Article 2 of the UCC, § 672.201 . . . conduct between Sculley and Sculley Boatbuilders which would excuse the requirement of a writing under § 672.201 . . . Section 672.201, Fla. . . .

B C INVESTORS, INC. H. v. VOJAK a, 79 So. 3d 42 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See id. at 1289 (citing section 672.201(1), Florida Statutes, for the proposition that the statute of . . .

GE LIN, v. ECCLESTONE SIGNATURE HOMES OF PALM BEACH, LLC, a, 59 So. 3d 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . what he argued in the trial court: the contract violates the statute of frauds contained in section 672.201 . . . Section 672.201 provides: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of . . . analyzed this case based upon the application of the statute of frauds for a sale of goods, section 672.201 . . . Similar to section 672.201(1), section 725.01 requires that a contract for sale of real estate be in . . . Even if we were to decide this case under Section 672.201, we would conclude that the statement of the . . .

WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. a a v. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC. a LLC, a, 633 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 672.201. . . . Stat. § 672.201(1). . . . Stat. § 672.201). . . . Stat. §§ 672.201; 680.201. See also India America Trading Co. v. . . .

TECHNICAL PACKAGING, INC. v. HANCHETT O s, P. A., 992 So. 2d 309 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See generally § 672.201, Fla. Stat. (2002); 45 Fla. . . .

BOLDSTAR TECHNICAL, LLC, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., 517 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 672.201(1). . . . fraud claim is essentially a contract claim repackaged as a tort action, and therefore barred by § 672.201 . . .

TOPP, INC. a v. UNIDEN AMERICA CORPORATION, a, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1187 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

. . . . § 672.201 applies to its claims and thus there is a quantity term sufficient to satisfy the Statute . . . Stat. § 725.01, the general statute, and § 672.201, which governs oral contracts for sale of goods, § . . . The undersigned finds that § 725.01, and not § 672.201, should control. . . . Stat. § 672.201, and not § 725.01, controls its indefinite oral exclusive distributorship claim. . . . Section 672.201 states that it applies to contracts for the purchase of goods worth $500 or more. . . .

H. P. B. C. INCORPORATED, a v. NOR- TECH POWERBOATS, INC. a, 946 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code, section 672.201(1), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: Except as otherwise . . . See §§ 672.201(1), 725.01, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . performed within one year, both the general and the Uniform Commercial Code statutes of frauds apply. §§ 672.201 . . .

BUSINESS RADIO, INC. v. RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION,, 373 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . . § 672.201(1) or Wash. Rev. . . .

AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ST. GEORGE CRYSTAL, LTD., 870 So. 2d 243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . If so, then section 672.201, the statute of frauds provided for in article 2 of the UCC, is controlling . . . Only upon a finding that section 672.201 is not controlling need we refer to the general statute of frauds . . . Wilson, 419 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (excluding the applicability of section 672.201 before analyzing . . . Therefore, section 672.201, not section 725.01, is controlling on the statute of frauds issue. . . . We need not consider the enforceability of the agreement pursuant to section 672.201 because St. . . .

In CORVETTE COLLECTION OF BOSTON, INC. C. v. J., 294 B.R. 409 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . . § 672.201 states: Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for . . . Stat. § 672.201(3) sets forth three exceptions to the statute of frauds. . . . Stat. § 672.201(3)(b) that the Orally Consigned Corvettes were in the Debtor’s possession at the time . . . Stat. § 672.201(3)(c). Acceptance is defined under Fla. . . .

OFFICE PAVILION SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. v. ASAL PRODUCTS, INC. a, 849 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 672.201(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that a contract for the sale of goods in excess . . . contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.” § 672.201 . . . but the contract is not enforceable under this provision beyond the quantity of goods admitted.” § 672.201 . . .

CONNER, I, INC. v. WALT DISNEY COMPANY,, 827 So. 2d 318 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . . § 672.201, Fla. Stat. (1996). . § 672.206, Fla. Stat. (1996). .§ 680.201(1), Fla. Stat. (1996). . . .

HARRIS, a v. SCHICKEDANZ BROS. RIVIERA LTD. a a, 746 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . authorized agent. (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods (s.672.201 . . .

COLEMAN COMPANY, INC. v. CARGIL INTERNATIONAL CORP., 731 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . See §§ 672.201(1), 725.01, Fla.Stat. (1995). See also Yates v. . . .

CENTRO NAUTICO REPRESENTACOES NAUTICAS, LDA. a a v. INTERNATIONAL MARINE CO- OP, LTD. a, 719 So. 2d 967 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . UCC section 672.201 limits enforcement of oral contracts captured by the statute of frauds to only goods . . . See § 672.201(3)(c), Fla. . . . . § 672.201(1), Fla. . . .

FUTURE TECH INTERNATIONAL, INC. a v. TAE IL MEDIA, LTD. IL U. S. A., 944 F. Supp. 1538 (S.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . . § 672.201(1). . . .

ADVANCED MOBILEHOME SYSTEMS OF TAMPA, INC. Ft. Ft. v. ALUMAX FABRICATED PRODUCTS, INC., 666 So. 2d 166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . did not reject the terms of the invoices, and, therefore, the written terms governed under sections 672.201 . . . It based its decision on sections 672.201(2) and 672.207(2), Florida Statutes (1991). . . . The objection-on-receipt provisions in sections 672.201 and 672.207 are sometimes confused. . . . The portions of those sections relevant to this case are as follows: 672.201 Formal requirements; statute . . . Section 672.201 is not applicable here. . . .

METTLER, INC. a v. ELLEN TRACY, INC. a a, 648 So. 2d 253 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . See §§ 672.201-.210, Fla.Stat. (1991). . . . See § 672.201(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .

STEWART d b a S v. J. P. MACH AGRI- MARKETING, INC., 641 So. 2d 202 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . .-209 and 672.201, Florida Statutes, was not raised before the hearing officer or the Department of Agriculture . . .

C. SPAZIANI, v. C. BANCROFT a, 618 So. 2d 744 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . “signed” includes any authentication which identifies the party to be charged. 19A F.S.A. p. 121, § 672.201 . . . executed or adopted by the party with present intention to authenticate the writing. § 19A F.S.A. p. 65, 672.201 . . . contain all of the essential terms necessary to make an enforceable contract for the sale of land). . § 672.201 . . .

In ATKINS,, 139 B.R. 39 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992)

. . . . § 672.201. . . .

GOLDEN NEEDLES KNITTING AND GLOVE COMPANY, INC. v. DYNAMIC MARKETING ENTERPRISES, INC., 766 F. Supp. 421 (W.D.N.C. 1991)

. . . . §§ 672.201 et seq. . . . the previous codification; that is without reference to Article 2 of the UCC (i.e., Fla.Stat.Ann. § 672.201 . . .

In HASTINGS MARINE CORPORATION, d b a, 99 B.R. 98 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1989)

. . . . § 672.201 governs written consignment agreements. . . .

Dr. K. KHOSHNOU, v. PAINE, WEBBER, JACKSON CURTIS, INC., 525 So. 2d 977 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . provide that subsection (3) is “new” to Florida law, and that it is to be interpreted like section 672.201 . . . The Uniform Commercial Code Comment to 2-201(2) (672.201(2)) provides that the only effect this section . . . contract was made for sale of a stated quantity of described securities at a defined or stated price. . 672.201 . . .

J. R. SALES, INC. v. DICKS,, 521 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Section 672.201(3), Florida Statutes (1985); Lea Industries, Inc. v. . . .

AL BOOTH S, INC. v. BOYD- SCARP ENTERPRISES, INC., 518 So. 2d 422 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . The statute of frauds found in the U.C.C., section 672.201, Florida Statutes (1985), is not a defense . . .

In B. DRIVER, B. DRIVER, v. FORD, a k a M. G. a k a d b a, 78 B.R. 616 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . Furthermore, FORD argues that even if he did, the Statute of Frauds provisions contained in § 672.201 . . . However, § 672.201(1), Florida Statutes, provides that “a contract for the sale of goods for the price . . . sought admits in his pleading, testimony or otherwise in Court that a contract for sale was made — ” § 672.201 . . . Accordingly, the Court is compelled to find that § 672.201(1), Florida Statutes, is applicable and that . . .

In DENMARK COMPANY, INC. L. BAKST, v. WHEELER OIL COMPANY, INC., 73 B.R. 325 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1987)

. . . . § 672.201) requires the production of a written consignment agreement, signed by the buyer. . . .

CENTRAL FLORIDA ANTENNA SERVICE, INCORPORATED, v. A. M. CRABTREE, Jr., 503 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . . §§ 672.102, 672.206, 672.201(1), Fla.Stat. (1985). . § 672.606(1), Fla.Stat. (1985). . . . .

LA ROSA, v. C. FORTIER,, 492 So. 2d 425 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Section 672.201(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides in relevant part that: [A] contract for the sale . . . Further, section 672.201 is applicable to an agreement modifying a contract, as well as to the original . . .

UNITED STATES v. CONRAD,, 619 F. Supp. 1319 (M.D. Fla. 1985)

. . . upon each item; and fifth, that the contract sued upon does not satisfy the statute of frauds, Section 672.201 . . . Section 672.201(1), Florida Statutes (1983). . . .

PACKAGING CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, v. TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC., 566 F. Supp. 1480 (S.D. Fla. 1983)

. . . . § 672.201(1) (1978). . . . Stat. § 672.201(3)(b) (1978). . . . Fla.Stat. § 672.201(1) (1978) states, in pertinent part, the following: Except as otherwise provided . . . Stat. § 672.201(3)(b) (1978) states that “[a] contract which does not satisfy the requirements of subsection . . .

ROZEMA, v. L. M. WILSON,, 419 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . motion, argued the agreement was a contract for sale and fell within the UCC Statute of Frauds, Section 672.201 . . . Section 672.201(3)(b), and was therefore enforceable. . . . for sale, falling within Article II of the UCC and therefore the Code’s Statute of Frauds, Section 672.201 . . . the issue whether the agreement is subject to the exception to the UCC Statute of Frauds, for Section 672.201 . . .

MIAMI PURVEYORS, INC. v. FORTE, BRICKELL BAY CLUB, INC. v. MIAMI PURVEYORS, INC., 407 So. 2d 330 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . the non-jury proceedings (a) a finding that Forte’s agreement was unenforceable under either Section 672.201 . . .

CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI v. MOTIF ART GALLERIES,, 49 Fla. Supp. 104 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1979)

. . . be treated as a separate contract for sale within the statute of frauds section of this chapter (s. 672.201 . . .

JIM SLIM S TOOL SUPPLY, INC. a v. METRO COMMUNITIES CORPORATION, a, 328 So. 2d 213 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . guarantee is unenforceable under the “Statute of Frauds” provision of the Uniform Commercial Code, § 672.201 . . . Concerning, now, the Statute of Frauds provision of the Uniform Commercial Code, § 672.201, supra, we . . .

CONTRACTORS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF PINELLAS COUNTY v. CITY OF DUNEDIN,, 329 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1976)

. . . . § 672.201 (1973), is unenforceable unless reduced to writing, with certain exceptions not pertinent . . .

ASHLAND OIL, INC. v. PICKARD MODERN FIBER GLASS, INC. L. v. PICKARD, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . memorandum signed by the party to be charged for an agreement not to be performed within one year, and § 672.201 . . . The first issue we shall discuss is whether statutes of frauds, §§ 672.201 and 725.01, may be avoided . . . However, in the case sub judice, the requirements of § 725.01 (contract for more than one year) and § 672.201 . . . To resolve the issue of whether the requirements of the statutes of frauds, §§ 672.201 and 725.01, were . . .

INTERNATIONAL DESIGN, INC. a v. RUBIN S FRANCHISES, INC. a, 247 So. 2d 778 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)

. . . Elliott Roosevelt inasmuch as said contract falls within the provisions of Florida Statutes § 671.206, 672.201 . . .