× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
j
3
s
3
j
2
J
2
e
2
n
2
t
2
d
2
b
2
t
2
J
2
b
2
Home Q & A Board Humanities Legal Studies
New Topic  
belleej belleej
wrote...
Go to Answer
Posts: 296
Rep: 0 0
6 years ago
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.
Read 57 times
1 Reply
Replies
Answer verified by a subject expert
acuda5acuda5
wrote...
#1
Posts: 218
Rep: 0 0
6 years ago
Sign in or Sign up in seconds to unlock everything for free
This verified answer contains over 120 words.
1

Related Topics

belleej Author
wrote...

6 years ago
Thanks for your help!!
vanna2014
wrote...

Yesterday
Brilliant ツ
Mkersey12
wrote...

2 hours ago
Helped a lot
New Topic      
Quick Reply
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  875 People Browsing
Start New Topic Take the Tour CoursesNew Study Tools Topics Trending Browse by Textbook
Live Chat
Related Images
  
 280
  
 356
  
 586
Your Opinion
Who will win the 2024 president election?
Votes: 119
Closes: November 4
Previous poll results: What's your favorite coffee beverage?