Forester v. State Board

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding under Sec. 2-719 that failure of limited remedy does not invalidate consequential damages exclusion
• stating that party suing for breach of contract “is entitled to the benefit of [the] bargain as written and is entitled to damages for the loss caused by failure to perform the stipulated bargain”
• finding similar contract language excluding consequential damages and limiting the remedy to repair or replacement in a sales contract not unconscionable
• noting that a limited remedy fails its essential purpose “whenever an exclusive remedy, which may have appeared fair and reasonable at the inception of the contract, as a result of later circumstances operates to deprive a party of a substantial benefit of the bargain.”
• finding similar contractual language excluding consequential damages and limiting the remedy to repair or replacement in a sales contract not unconscionable
• disallowing recovery for the “cost of repairs to put the [product] into reasonably operable condition”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).