Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Paul Gottlieb & Co., Inc. v. Alps South Corp.

Florida Court of Appeal
985 So.2d 1 (2007)


Facts

Paul Gottlieb & Company, Inc. (Gottlieb) (plaintiff) was a fabric converter based in New York that supplied its customers with specialty knitted fabrics. Alps South Corporation (Alps) (defendant) was a medical device company located in St. Petersburg, Florida, that produced various liners that amputees used to attach prosthetic devices to the appendage. Alps contracted with Gottlieb to provide a new specialty fabric for its products. Approximately six months into the relationship the parties began to have disputes. Alps sent a letter notifying Gottlieb of product deficiencies and conditioned their future relationship on Gottlieb improving the quality of the fabric supplied. However, Alps did not inform Gottlieb that it might incur substantial costs as a result of using a different fabric. After Gottlieb substituted a yarn that caused Alps’ products to deteriorate more quickly, Alps began receiving numerous customer complaints and was forced to recall the liners it had placed on the market. When Gottlieb did not receive payment from Alps it brought suit to collect damages due to the nonpayment. Alps counterclaimed for damages caused by Gottlieb’s breach of warranty. After a bench trial, the court awarded damages to both parties and determined that under Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) provisions, a limitation of liability clause on the back of Gottlieb’s finished goods contract was unenforceable. The trial court declined to enforce the provision concluding that by operation of law, it was not a part of the contract. Gottlieb appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Casanueva, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.