Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P bought a used truck from D to be used in the hauling of automobiles between California and Washington. The odometer showed 6,180 miles, and D assured P that the original warranty, which was still in effect, would cover the vehicle for an additional 94,000 miles. New truck warranties were set out in an 'Owner Book.' D did not go through the 'Owner Book' and explain the intricacies of the warranties and the various disclaimers. P was not advised of the existence of any disclaimers or exclusionary clauses. On October 5, 1970, the engine exploded. The vehicle still had more than 50,000 miles remaining on the warranty. P notified Cummins Engine Co., Inc., and D whose separate warranty appeared in the 'Owner Book.' P took the truck to a local Cummins dealer, who undertook repairs without cost to P. It was then determined that the engine failure was the result of a casting defect in a piston rod cap. The truck never functioned properly, experiencing heating and vibration problems. P made repeated complaints to Cummins and D. P sued Cummins and D. The complaint alleged that P had incurred $8,431.45 in repair bills and $12,160 in lost profits. The court refused to recognize D's claim that it was protected from any consequential damages due to an exclusionary clause contained in the White truck comprehensive warranty, which stated in normal size print: 'In no event shall the Seller be liable for special or consequential damages.' The court held that there had been no discussion nor explicit negotiations between D and P regarding limitations or disclaimers of liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed. D appealed. D contends that the criteria utilized by the trial court is limited to cases arising under UCC 2-316, and is not intended to apply to cases pertaining to UCC 2-719(3).
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co