After outlining the subsections of section 2-719 of the Uniform Commercial Code and suggesting a method for determining to what language in a contract the section should apply, the article discusses the concept of unconscionability that courts must consider under section 2-719(3). It then examines the applicability of section 2-719(2), the "failure of essential purpose" section, to the facts in Washington Supreme Court case Schroeder v. Fageol Motors, Inc. and argues that its application should result in an award of consequential damages, regardless of the fact that the exclusion of consequential damages is conscionable. The article concludes by suggesting a conceptual approach that may aid courts in solving similar problems.
Joan L. Roth, To Have and Have Not: The Application of U.C.C. §2-719 to Clauses Limiting Remedy to Repair or Replacement and Excluding Liability for Consequential Damages in Commercial Contracts, 2 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 289 (1979).