This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P bought some windows from D called 'lites.' Lites change color in the sun because of a special coating, and only a handful of window manufacturers in the world make them. P wanted the lites for a resort under construction in Macau. The contract between the parties stated in big, capital letters that 'VIRACON SHALL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF ANY KIND.' It 'expressly disclaimed any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.' The exclusive remedies were a 'refund of the purchase price' or receiving a replacement 'without charge,' meaning that any additional repairs were P's responsibility. Over time, the lites began to fail. P sued D demanding additional payments of more than $5.2 million for the replacement of defective lites. Removing and installing replacements has already cost P over $2.8 million. P sued for $8 million. The district court granted D's motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract itself ruled out consequential damages as a remedy. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.