Murray v. Holiday Rambler, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a seller may restrict a buyer's claims in two ways — by expressly disclaiming all implied warranties pursuant to § 402.316 or by limiting the buyer's remedies pursuant to § 402.719
• observing that, if major problems requiring repair continue, it becomes obvious that a \particular vehicle simply cannot be repaired or parts replaced so that the same is made free of defect\
• permitting recovery of consequential damages, despite disclaimer, on exclusive remedy's failure of essential purpose
• stating loss of use “should not be calculated simply by reference to the number of days the vehicle sits idle, absent evidence that the vehicle would have been in use for the entire period”
• permitting recovery of consequential damages, despite disclaimer, on exclusive remedy’s failure of essential purpose
• sale of automobile tires; clause limiting liability held unconscionable when raised in defense of personal injury claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).