Wilk Paving, Inc. v. Southworth-Milton, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that whether buyer’s continued use of product after revocation was a reasonable “good faith attempt to mitigate damages” was “a question of fact” for trial court’s consideration
• holding buyer’s continued use of asphalt paving machine after revocation of acceptance was reasonable where the seller continued to assure buyer that seller could repair machine
• noting that buyer gave seller multiple opportunities over a nine-month period to fix readily identifiable mechanical issue with a roller
• rejecting plaintiff's claim of unconscionability under 9A V.S.A. § 2-719(3) and upholding contractual exclusion of consequential damages notwithstanding plaintiff's claim of oppression and surprise
• rejecting plaintiff’s claim of unconscionability under 9A V.S.A. § 2-719(3) and upholding contractual exclusion of consequential damages notwithstanding plaintiff’s claim of oppression and surprise
• where defendant failed to raise affirmative defense in pleadings, trial briefs, and requests for findings and proposed conclusions of law, trial court properly denied a post-judgment motion under V.R.C.P. 15(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).