Rudy's Glass Const. Co. v. EF Johnson Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that language appearing on the front in all capital letters was a sufficient and conspicuous reference to terms included on the back
• finding disclaimer set forth in a separate paragraph titled “Disclaimer of Warranties” and in a larger or contrasting font conspicuous
• finding that a boldfaced disclaimer in all capital letters was conspicuous
• disclaimer is conspicuous where it was only material printed in all capital letters on page
• statement “immediately below the signature” referenced terms and conditions on the reverse side of the document; that disclaimer was conspicuous where it was in all capital letters and set forth in a separate paragraph titled “Disclaimer of Warranties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).