T.W.M. v. American Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995); Douse v. Boston Sci. Corp., 314 F.Supp.3d 1251, 1261-62 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (privity requirement satisfied by “substantial direct contacts” between buyer and manufacturer). In general, “[n]o privity exists, and a breach of warranty claim fails, where plaintiff did not purchase the product from the defendant.”

"A plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant." T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995). However, Florida jurisprudence recognizes the third-party beneficiary exception.

"A plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant." T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995). A plaintiff "cannot execute an end-run around Florida's historic privity requirement by employing principal-agent theory . . . ."

See John W. Reis, The Magic of Privity in Express Product Warranty Claims: A Plaintiff's Perspective, 79 Fla. B.J. 50, 50 (2005). At least two federal court cases have lumped together implied and express warranty claims, stating that that “[u]nder Florida law, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract to recover under theories of breach of express or implied warranties.” Fields v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 751 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1259 (N.D.Fla.2009); T.W.M. v. American Medical Sys., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D.Fla.1995) (same). They do so, however, without significant analysis.

At least two federal court cases have lumped together implied and express warranty claims, stating that that "[u]nder Florida law, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract to recover under theories of breach of express or implied warranties." Fields v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1259 (N.D. Fla. 2009); T.W.M. v. American Medical Sys., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (same). They do so, however, without significant analysis.