Limitation of Remedies. Wilk Paving, Inc, bought a street-paving ...

[fahad]

Limitation of Remedies. Wilk Paving, Inc, bought a street-paving asphalt roller from Southworth-Milton, Inc In large capital letters, on the front of the contract, was printed, ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON REVERSE SIDE. A clause on the back stated that under no circumstances shall seller . . . be held liable for any . . . consequential damages. In a hurry to close the deal, Wilk's representative did not notice this clause, and Southworth's representative did not call attention to it. Within sixty days, the roller needed the first of what became continuous repairs for mechanical problems. Wilk asked Southworth for its money back. When Southworth refused, Wilk sued Southworth, seeking the purchase price and consequential damages. Was the clause limiting damages enforceable in these circumstances? Explain.

Question 2

A senior manager at Don Reid Ford is an example of a(n):
 a. agent
  b. employee
  c. employee with agency powers d. independent contractor
  e. agent and independent contractor

[ttt030911]

Answer to Question 1

Limitation of remedies
The court awarded the price of the paver to Wilk but denied consequential damages, and both parties appealed. Wilk argued that the clause limiting remedies was unconscionable. Affirming the lower court's award, the Supreme Court of Vermont held, among other things, that the limitation clause was enforceable. The court noted that it was clearly stated on the front page of the contract: Additional terms and conditions on reverse side. Besides, when the deal was struck, both parties were commercial entities experienced in business matters. Plaintiff's lack of attention, alone, cannot justify dispensing with the unambiguous contractual limitation of remedy contained in the contract. Absent a showing of unfair surprise or oppres-sion, the disputed term cannot be invalidated as unconscionable.

Answer to Question 2

c

[fahad]

Great answer, keep it coming

[bblaney]

Gracias!