Leprino v. Intermountain Brick Co., 86CA0709
| Decision Date | 16 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86CA0709,86CA0709 |
| Parties | 6 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 377 Mike A. LEPRINO and Joan C. Leprino, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. INTERMOUNTAIN BRICK COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Maynard and Miller, Glen B. Maynard, Golden, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Anderson, Campbell and Laugesen, P.C., Phillip S. Lorenzo, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Intermountain Brick Company, appeals a judgment which awarded plaintiffs direct and consequential damages for breach of warranty. We affirm.
Defendant sold white bricks to plaintiffs' son-in-law, a general contractor, for the construction of plaintiffs' home. The trial court found that plaintiffs' son-in-law acted as plaintiffs' agent. After the bricks were installed they began to stain. A brick cleaning solution recommended by defendant exacerbated the staining. Plaintiffs' son-in-law attempted unsuccessfully to remedy the problem by painting the brick.
Plaintiffs sued for breach of warranty, and defendant sued for the price of the bricks and to foreclose its mechanic's lien on plaintiffs' residence. The suits were consolidated and tried to the court, which awarded plaintiffs damages to cover the cost of tearing down and replacing the brick, plus amounts spent by plaintiffs in attempting to correct the staining problem.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding unconscionable a contract clause which attempted to limit defendant's liability to the "plant value" of the goods sold. We agree with the result reached by the trial court, but on different grounds.
Section 4-2-719, C.R.S., provides that parties by agreement may limit the measure of damages recoverable under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Section 4-2-719(3), C.R.S., provides that consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable.
A finding of unconscionability is a question of law. Section 4-2-302(1), C.R.S. In order to support a finding of unconscionability, there must be evidence in the record of some overreaching on the part of one of the parties, such as that which results from an inequality of bargaining power or other circumstances in which there is an absence of meaningful choice on the part of the second party, together with contract terms unreasonably favorable to the first party. Contract terms, particularly in a transaction involving a consumer, will be found unconscionable when they defeat the reasonable expectations of the parties. Davis v. M.L.G. Corp., 712 P.2d 985 (Colo.1986).
Here, the trial court found that the damages limitation clause was unconscionable with respect to the latent defect in the bricks because the installed bricks had to be removed, and the costs of removal and replacement far exceeded the costs of merely purchasing new bricks. This finding is not sufficient to sustain a holding of unconscionability. See Davis v. M.L.G. Corp., supra. There was no evidence or finding of inequality of bargaining power or of overreaching on the part of defendant.
However, we conclude that the trial court's decision is sustainable under § 4-2-719(2), C.R.S. That subsection provides that where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, the full range of Article 2 remedies becomes available.
Failure of the essential purpose of a remedy is measured by whether the buyer is deprived of the substantial value of his bargain. Wenner Petroleum Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. 748 P.2d 356 (Colo.App.1987). One situation in which a limitation of remedy to return of the purchase price has been held to fail of its essential purpose is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canal Elec. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
...Corp., 547 F.2d 1365 (8th Cir.1977); Jones & McKnight Corp. v. Birdsboro Corp., 320 F.Supp. 39 (N.D.Ill.1970); Leprino v. Intermountain Brick Co., 759 P.2d 835 (Colo.App.1988); Adams v. J.I. Case Co., 125 Ill.App.2d 388, 261 N.E.2d 1 (1970).Many of the courts following the rule that consequ......
-
Cooley v. Big Horn Harvestore Systems, Inc.
...failure of essential purpose doctrine. See Balistreri Greenhouses v. Roper Corp., 767 P.2d 736 (Colo.App.1988); Leprino v. Intermountain Brick Co., 759 P.2d 835 (Colo.App.1988). The policy behind the statutory provision establishing the failure of essential purpose doctrine is discussed in ......
-
Coll. Park Pentecostal Holiness Church v. Gen. Steel Corp.
...on the part of the second party, together with contract terms unreasonably favorable to the first party.” Leprino v. Intermountain Brick Co., 759 P.2d 835, 836 (Colo.App.1988) (citing Davis, 712 P.2d at 991);see also Mullan, 797 F.2d at 850 (quoting Davis, 712 P.2d at 991). Factors relevant......
-
Traxler v. PPG Indus., Inc.
...Corp ., 595 F.Supp. 1495, 1510 (E.D.N.Y.1984), aff'd in part and rev'd in part , 786 F.2d 72 (2d Cir.1986) ); Leprino v. Intermountain Brick Co. , 759 P.2d 835, 837 (Colo.App.1988) (finding failure of essential purpose where a latent defect was not discoverable until after use and significa......
-
Making Up Your Own Rules for Resolving Residential Construction Defect Disputes
...terms of the Project CC&R's or participate in their drafting"). [51] CRS § 13-20-806(7)(a). See also Leprino v. Intermountain Brick Co., 759 P.2d 835, 836 (Colo.App. 1988) ("Contract terms, particularly in a transaction involving a consumer, will be found unconscionable when they defeat the......
-
Beware the Boilerplate: Assessing Consequential Damages Waivers in Technology Contracts
...Gen. Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 224 P.3d 336, 341 (Colo.App. 2009), aff’d, 255 P.3d 1039 (Colo. 2011). [40] Leprino v. Intermountain Brick Co., 759 P.2d 835, 836 (Colo.App. 1988). [41] Id. [42] See Mullan v. Quickie Aircraft Corp., 797 F.2d 845, 851 (10th Cir. 1986) (applying Colorado law); RBK Sp......