Peter contracted to purchase five (5) cases of soda and a vacuum cleaner because Peter
was planning a party for his son’s graduation. Both contract forms that Peter signed
contained exclusion of damages clauses; i.e., each contract stated that the buyer had no
right to sue the seller in the event that the goods were defective. Instead, each seller’s
sole obligation was to replace or repair the defective goods within a reasonable time of
being notified of the defect(s). These clauses in the contract were set forth in the
ordinary type of the contract and were not especially conspicuous.
The vacuum cleaner was delivered on Friday, the day before the party, when the rugs in
Peter’s home were quite dirty. The vacuum cleaner did not work properly. Peter notified
the seller, who responded by saying that nothing could be done until the following
week. Frantic because guests were coming, Peter hired a cleaning service to clean the
rugs.
While serving the soda to guests, one of the bottle caps burst from an unopened bottle
with great force. It struck Peter in the eye and he required medical treatment and
hospitalization.
Eventually, Peter sued both sellers for damages. Peter sought the expense of the
cleaning service from one. From the other, Peter sought damages for personal injury,
including his medical and hospitalization expenses. Both defendant-sellers cited the
exclusion of damages clauses as their defense.
Goods are called identified goods when they have been selected as the goods called for
by a sales contract.