2P Commercial Agency v. Familant

2013 WL 246650 (2013)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

2P Commercial Agency v. Familant

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
2013 WL 246650 (2013)


2P Commercial Agency S.R.O. (2P) (plaintiff) was a global wholesale trader of mobile telephones. 2P was based in the Czech Republic. Len Familant (defendant) told a 2P representative that Familant was involved in Apple’s distribution system and could obtain Apple iPhones with European specifications at below-market prices through SRT USA, Inc. (SRT) (defendant). A purchase order dated July 13, 2011, was prepared, specifying SRT as the supplier and calling for July 19 delivery of the phones in Prague. Familant and 2P’s representative signed the purchase order. On July 13, a purchase invoice on SRT’s letterhead for $55,360 was provided to 2P. 2P tried to pay that amount on July 14, but the payment did not go through because the purchase invoice’s banking information was incorrect. 2P successfully made payment on July 19. Familant provided a $300,000 personal guarantee in connection with 2P’s payment. When the phones were not delivered on July 19, 2P agreed to several specific alternative delivery dates, but 2P never received any phones. SRT refunded only $5,000 to 2P, and Familant refused to honor his personal guarantee. 2P sued Familant and SRT in Florida federal court, alleging violations of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), as well as breach of Familant’s personal guarantee. The court entered a default judgment against SRT. Familant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the CISG was inapplicable because (1) he was neither a buyer nor seller but served only as SRT’s agent, (2) the contract was unenforceable under CISG Article 19 because 2P did not pay for the phones until the intended delivery date and 2P never fixed a specific alternate delivery date, and (3) 2P did not strictly comply with CISG Article 47 regarding breach remedies because 2P did not fix a specific new delivery date. Familant further argued that the FDUTPA was inapplicable because 2P improperly converted a breach-of-contract claim into an FDUTPA claim even though there was no evidence that Familant made deceptive statements to 2P. Finally, Familant argued that his personal guarantee was invalid because it was not supported by consideration, was fraudulently induced, and was ambiguous and indefinite.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership