Laity v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that disclaimer was not conspicuous as required by OCGA § 11-2-316 (2) given that only the introductory language was capitalized and the actual disclaimer language was in exactly the same size and color type as the remainder of the contract
• Language in the body of a form is conspicuous if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color.
• even a non-conspicuous disclaimer can exclude liability for breach of express, as opposed to implied, warranty
• even a non-conspicuous disclaimer can exclude liability for breach of express, as opposed to implied, warranty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).