Fifth Circuit before September 30, 1981 are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir.1981). 10 . Plaintiff agreed that his remedy on the express warranty count is limited to repairs and replacement of parts. During oral argument, upon the Court's question, "Does not the express warranty limit the remedy to repairs ... ?”, Plaintiff’s counsel stated, "I believe that it limits it to repairs and replacement of parts.” 11 . Where circumstances cause a limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, alternative UCC remedies may be available. Fla. Stat. § 672.719; Griffis v. Leisure Tyme RV, Inc., 884 So.2d 241, 243 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004); see also Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority v. Mincom, Inc., 2007 WL 1222595 (M.D.Fla. 2007) (<HOLDING>). The “essential purposes” exception typically
holding that  672316 and  672719 stand for the principle that parties to a contract may properly limit the remedies for a breachofwarranty to repair and replacement when such limitations are reasonable but noting that the limitation is not valid when the limitation causes the product to fail of its essential purpose recognizing that a principal may limit the authority of its agent and such limitation will be binding on a third party who is aware of the limitation holding that if easement language is clear and unambiguous and does not limit its duration then the court cannot impose such a limitation holding that written warranty may limit a remedy to repair or replacement of parts so long as limitation is clearly expressed holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant