This topic contains a solution. Click here to go to the answer

Author Question: Limitation of Remedies. Wilk Paving, Inc, bought a street-paving asphalt roller from ... (Read 100 times)

fahad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
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



Related Topics

Need homework help now?

Ask unlimited questions for free

Ask a Question
Marked as best answer by a Subject Expert

ttt030911

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
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

  • Member
  • Posts: 570
Reply 2 on: Jun 24, 2018
Great answer, keep it coming :)


olderstudent

  • Member
  • Posts: 339
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
Wow, this really help

 

Did you know?

More than 150,000 Americans killed by cardiovascular disease are younger than the age of 65 years.

Did you know?

Elderly adults are at greatest risk of stroke and myocardial infarction and have the most to gain from prophylaxis. Patients ages 60 to 80 years with blood pressures above 160/90 mm Hg should benefit from antihypertensive treatment.

Did you know?

The first successful kidney transplant was performed in 1954 and occurred in Boston. A kidney from an identical twin was transplanted into his dying brother's body and was not rejected because it did not appear foreign to his body.

Did you know?

It is widely believed that giving a daily oral dose of aspirin to heart attack patients improves their chances of survival because the aspirin blocks the formation of new blood clots.

Did you know?

People often find it difficult to accept the idea that bacteria can be beneficial and improve health. Lactic acid bacteria are good, and when eaten, these bacteria improve health and increase longevity. These bacteria included in foods such as yogurt.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library