| ♥ 0 |
Frank’s Maintenance and Engineering, Inc., orally ordered steel tubing from C.A. Roberts Co. for use in the manufacture of motorcycle front fork tubes. Because these front fork tubes bear the bulk of the weight of a motorcycle, the steel used must be of high quality. Roberts Co. sent an acknowledgment with conditions of sale including one that limited consequential damages and restricted remedies available upon breach by requiring claims for defective equipment to be made promptly upon receipt. The conditions were located on the back of the acknowledgment. The legend “conditions of sale on reverse side” was stamped over so that on first appearance it read “No conditions of sale on reverse side.” Roberts delivered the order in January. The steel had no visible defects; however, when Frank’s Maintenance began using the steel in its manufacture in the summer, it discovered that the steel was pitted and cracked beyond repair. Frank’s Maintenance informed Roberts Co. of the defects, revoked its acceptance of the steel, and sued for breach of warranty of merchantability. Is the limitation of rights enforceable? Why or why not? |
Explanation
At the time of the contract, Inc.F. is unable to prompt the defect in the steel, even after the acceptance. It is impossible to make a claim for the steel as per the requirements of the claim, after a period of time, because of the limiting clause mentioned on the reverse side for the acknowledgement. So, the claim here is unconscionable.
Sample Response
The judgement is going to be in favor of Inc. F. In this case, the limiting clause is on the reverse side of the acknowledgement, which predicts the irrelevance of the stamp in the front. At the time of the contract, Inc. F was unaware about its irrelevance. The defect in steel is not identified after the acceptance. So, it will be impossible to claim. The claim is unconscionable.
Assignment Writers are Online Now!
Need to pay someone to write your paper from scratch? We have experts for all types of assignments.