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 86 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
YES! Correct, THANKS for helping me on my review


pratush dev

  • Member
  • Posts: 321
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
Great answer, keep it coming :)

 

Did you know?

Thyroid conditions cause a higher risk of fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

Did you know?

Your chance of developing a kidney stone is 1 in 10. In recent years, approximately 3.7 million people in the United States were diagnosed with a kidney disease.

Did you know?

Nearly 31 million adults in America have a total cholesterol level that is more than 240 mg per dL.

Did you know?

The average human gut is home to perhaps 500 to 1,000 different species of bacteria.

Did you know?

It is difficult to obtain enough calcium without consuming milk or other dairy foods.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library