U

A seller's inability to repair fully a product causes the repair and rescission remedy to fail of its essential purpose under 2-719(2). See Lidstrand v. Silvercrest Industries, 28 Wash. App 359, 623 P.2d 710 (1981); Melby v. Hawkins Pontiac, 13 Wash. App. 745, 537 P.2d 807 (1975).

Washington cases hold that an exclusive remedy fails its essential purpose where a conceded defect is not detectable until it is impractical to effectuate the exclusive remedy. See e.g., Lidstrand v. Silvercrest Industries, 28 Wash. App. 359, 623 P.2d 710 (1981); Schroeder v. Fageol Motors, 12 Wash. App. 161, 528 P.2d 992 (1974), rev'd ...