Quiet Technology Aerospace, Inc. v. Group E. Holdings, Inc.
The Third District affirmed in a per curiam citation opinion. The cited authorities indicate the court found that the claimant did not prove its breach-of-contract elements and that no anticipatory repudiation occurred under section 672.610. Under the UCC, repudiation requires a distinct, unequivocal refusal or an overt communication of intent not to perform. Stating a 'preferred course of action,' or demanding more than the contract requires, is not enough by itself.
Key facts
- Quiet Technology Aerospace appealed a final judgment from Miami-Dade Circuit Court (Judge Spencer Eig) in a commercial contract dispute with Group E. Holdings (L.T. No. 19-5626-CA-01).
- The Third District affirmed in a per curiam citation opinion. It did not recite the facts, but the cited authorities point to a sale-of-goods contract governed by Florida's UCC Article 2 (Chapter 672), with disputed issues of adequate assurance of performance and anticipatory repudiation.
Holdings
- Under sections 672.609 and 672.610, Florida Statutes, and UCC § 2-610 comments 1 and 2, anticipatory repudiation requires a distinct, unequivocal, and absolute refusal to perform, or an…
- +1 more holding with a free trial
Why it matters
This per curiam citation affirmance has no precedential value, but it signals how the Third District applies the UCC's adequate-assurance and anticipatory-repudiation provisions in commercial sale-of-goods disputes. A… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.