24 Ucc rep.serv.2d 471, prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,034 Transport Corporation of America, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. International Business MacHines Corporation, Inc., a New York Corporation Innovative Computing Corporation, an Oklahoma Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 district · 4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... To exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability ... the language must mention merchantability and in the case of writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simitar Entertainment, Inc. v. UAV Corp. (In Re Simitar Entertainment, Inc.) · 693 F. Supp. 2d 1055 - Dj Coleman, Inc. v. Nufarm Americas, Inc.

2. “41-02-98. (2-719) Contractual modification or limitation of remedy. 1. Subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3 of this section and of section 41-02-97 on liquidation and limitation of damages: a. The agreement may provide for remedies in addition to or in substitution for those provided in this chapter and may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable under this chapter, as by limiting the buyer’s remedies to return of the goods and repayment of the price or to repair and replacement of nonconforming goods or parts; and b. Resort to a remedy as provided is optional unless the remedy is expressly agreed to be exclusive, in which case it is the sole remedy. 2. If circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this title. 3. Consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable but limitation of damages where the loss is commercial is not.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 693 F. Supp. 2d 1055 - Dj Coleman, Inc. v. Nufarm Americas, Inc.

3. “A repair or replace clause does not fail of its essential purpose so long as repairs are made each time a defect arises.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 574 F. Supp. 2d 1019 - Sipe v. FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA