Seibel v. Layne & Bowler, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to give effect to war- ranty disclaimers because “[o]nly the paragraph headings, e.g., ‘WARRANTY,’ stand out, but such a heading suggests the making of warranties, not their exclusion”
• declining to give effect to war- ranty disclaimers because “[o]nly the paragraph headings, e.g., ‘WARRANTY,’ stand out, but such a heading suggests the making of warranties, not their exclusion”
• disclaimer held not conspicuous when only the paragraph heading \Warranty\ stood out and suggested the making of the warranties, not their exclusion
• disclaimer held not conspicuous when only the paragraph heading “Warranty” stood out and suggested the making of the warranties, not their exclusion
• “[A] provision is not conspicuous when there is only a slight contrast with the balance of the instrument.”
• print used in contract generally difficult to read, used type smaller and more closely spaced than that used for footnotes in court’s permanent reports

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).