Carr v. Hoosier Photo Supplies, Inc.

441 N.E.2d 450 (1982)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P purchased some Kodak film from a retailer not a party to this action, including four rolls of Kodak Ektachrome-X 135 slide film that are the subject matter of this dispute. P and his family vacationed in Europe. Using his camera P took a great many photographs of the sites they saw, using among others the four rolls of film referred to earlier. P took a total of eighteen rolls of exposed film to D to be developed. D sent the film to Kodak (D) but only fourteen rolls were returned to P after processing. The film boxes all contained the following limitation of liability: 'READ THIS NOTICE' 'This film will be replaced if defective in manufacture, labeling, or packaging, or if damaged or lost by us or any subsidiary company even though by negligence or other fault. Except for such replacement, the sale, processing, or other handling of this film for any purpose is without other warranty of liability.' P admitted he never read this notice on the packages of film he bought, but knew there was printed on such packages 'a limitation of liability similar or identical to the Eastman Kodak limitation of liability.' The source of P's knowledge was agreed to be his years of experience as an attorney and as an amateur photographer. D also gave P a receipt for each roll which had printed on its back: 'Although film price does not include processing by Kodak, the return of any film or print to us for processing or any other purpose will constitute an agreement by you that if any such film or print is damaged or lost by us or any subsidiary company, even though by negligence or other fault, it will be replaced with an equivalent amount of Kodak film and processing and, except for such replacement, the handling of such film or prints by us for any purpose is without other warranty or liability.' P did not read this notice but was aware that printed limitations of liability were on the back of each receipt. It was stipulated the four rolls of film were lost by Ds. P sued Ds. P sued Ds for $10,000 in damages. The trial court awarded $1,013.60. Both parties appealed. The appeals court affirmed. Ds appealed. Ds contend in part that the relevant portions of the Uniform Commercial Code are not properly applied to determine the effectiveness of their limitations.