terms of the Warranty, Plaintiffs remedy is limited to repair or replacement parts, and I convert Defendants’ motions to dismiss this claim into motions for summary judgment so that I may consider fully the recall issued by Defendants. In his Complai arranty can be limited in accordance with the provisions of this chapter on liquidation or limitation of damages and on contractual modification of remedy.”); Fla. Stat. § 672.719 (“The agreement may provide for remedies ... in substitution for those provided in this chapter and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this chapter, as by limiting the buyer’s remedies to ... repair and replacement of nonconforming goods or parts.”); cf. Parsons v. Motor Homes of America, Inc., 465 So.2d 1285, 1291 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Warranty expressly states that
holding plaintiff was barred from seeking remedy because express warranty expired in accordance with time limits elucidated in the limited repair and replace warranty holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only holding plaintiffs were not foreclosed from pursuing ucc remedies outside of written warranty because warranty notice provision did not specify that the remedies provided were exclusive of any other remedy holding that one year warranty was not an exclusive remedy for defective construction where the contract did not so state holding that the remedies are exclusive