Kruger v. Subaru of America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiff failed to meet burden of proof under Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code because plaintiff failed to show difference between vehicle as warranted and vehicle as actually delivered
• finding that, although purchase price is evidence of value of vehicle as warranted, plaintiffs must show actual value of vehicle when it was delivered in its allegedly defective condition
• finding that claim for damages under Section 2715 must be supported by evidence
• finding that express warranty’s specific exclusion of consequential damages would not cause essential purpose of warranty, to repair or replace defective parts free of charge, to fail and therefore plaintiffs not entitled to recovery of collateral damages under UCC
• where “state law allows for the exclusion of collateral damages” a plaintiff may not recover them under Magnuson-Moss

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).