by-pass the UCC provision regarding revocation of acceptance by claiming that the non-conforming gloves it knowingly accepted violated an implied warranty. Accordingly, summary judgment should be granted concerning this counterclaim. Defendant contends in its sixth counterclaim that Plaintiff committed unfair and/or deceptive trade practices violative of Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 501.201 et seq. As a matter of law, the Court believes that the statute is limited to “consumer transactions”, and not to sophisticated commercial transactions such as in the matter presently before the Court. The statute is not intended to protect parties such as Defendant that have substantial previous experience in such transactions. See Black v. Department of Legal Affairs, 353 So.2d 655, 656 (Fla.Ct.App.1977) (<HOLDING>). The Court believes there is no genuine issue
recognizing trend in the law to protect consumers including lessees holding that the dualspring design was not protectable because it had a purpose beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by the plaintiff holding that the good faith requirement of the whistleblower statute was not met where the purpose of the employee at the time of the making of reports was not to protect the public but to protect the jobs of himself and his coworkers recognizing purpose of ccpa as protection of consumers from unfair illegal or deceptive acts holding that purpose of statute is to protect unwary consumers