Pierce v. Catalina Yachts, Inc.
Supreme Court of Alaska
2 P.3d 618 (1999)
Relevant factsFree
The Pierces (plaintiffs) bought a yacht from Catalina (defendant) under a preprinted warranty promising hull-blister repairs but disclaiming consequential damages; when blisters appeared and Catalina refused to repair or pay for repairs despite repeated requests, the Pierces sued, and the jury found Catalina breached the warranty, that the Pierces could not have avoided their damages, and that Catalina acted in bad faith. The trial court nonetheless enforced the consequential-damages bar as not unconscionable and limited recovery to repair costs, and the Pierces appealed.
IssueFree
Whether consequential damages may be limited or excluded under the UCC unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable.
Related cases
Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc.190 F.3d 252 (1999)Kenco Homes Inc. v. Williams94 Wash. App. 219 (1999)First National Bank of Palmerton v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.1999 WL 163606 (1999)Mundaca Investment Corp. v. Febba727 A.2d 990 (1999)Caspi v. Microsoft Network LLC732 A.2d 528 (N.J. Super. 1999)