Weeden v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing 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 a limited remedy clause failed of its essential purpose, in part, because “the purchase price amounted to only a small fraction of the overall repair cost when the product failed, 8 which cost was foreseeable to the seller”
• plaintiff manufacturer failed to allege that defendant supplier “deliberately concealed any specific fact ... ”
• “[A]ny tort claim premised on Sapa’s failure to conform to [Marvin’s] specifications is premised on a breach of contract (or rather, breach of warranty) and barred under Minnesota law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).