709 F.2d 427 (1983)
Plaintiff sued defendant to collect a balance allegedly due under an agreement in which plaintiff sold defendant a freezer. Defendant counterclaimed for damages after the freezer malfunctioned. Defendant was awarded lost profits despite the parties' contract exclusion of consequential damages.
- The court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision for defendant.
- The trial court properly allowed the jury to reach the issue of whether the repair and recission exclusive remedy failed its essential purpose.
- The record contained sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that plaintiff was unable to promptly repair the freezer to meet performance warranties and that plaintiff concealed facts concerning the freezer facts until such time as a rescission would have caused severe financial damages to defendant.
- The court vacated and remanded the award of consequential damages because the trial court failed to make a separate determination of unconscionability under Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2-719(2), which was the governing provision on the issue of consequential damages exclusion.
The court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the verdict for defendant in its counterclaim against plaintiff for breach of warranty. The trial court properly allowed the issue of whether the repair and recission remedy failed of its essential purpose. The court vacated the award of consequential damages because the trial court failed to make a separate determination of unconscionability under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Contract Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials.