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 98 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
Gracias!


shewald78

  • Member
  • Posts: 340
Reply 3 on: Yesterday
Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it

 

Did you know?

According to the FDA, adverse drug events harmed or killed approximately 1,200,000 people in the United States in the year 2015.

Did you know?

Blood in the urine can be a sign of a kidney stone, glomerulonephritis, or other kidney problems.

Did you know?

Allergies play a major part in the health of children. The most prevalent childhood allergies are milk, egg, soy, wheat, peanuts, tree nuts, and seafood.

Did you know?

Automated pill dispensing systems have alarms to alert patients when the correct dosing time has arrived. Most systems work with many varieties of medications, so patients who are taking a variety of drugs can still be in control of their dose regimen.

Did you know?

Not getting enough sleep can greatly weaken the immune system. Lack of sleep makes you more likely to catch a cold, or more difficult to fight off an infection.

For a complete list of videos, visit our video library