Legal Opinion
Canal Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 9, 1990PublishedCited by 109 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAbrams, J.
Pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382 Mass. 700 (1981), a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has certified to us two questions of Massachusetts law concerning consequential damages under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code in circumstances in which a limited contractual remedy has failed of its essential purpose. See G. L. c. 106, § 2-719 (1988 ed.). The questions certified are: “1. Assuming that the Westinghouse exclusive remedy failed of its essential purpose, is the provision entitled Limitation of Liability enforceable under the…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Linthicum v. ArchambaultMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
- Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
- International Fidelity Insurance v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- Simon v. SolomonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Clark v. International Harvester Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1978
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by109 opinions
- Valjeanne Currie v. Group Insurance CommissionCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002
- Kristian v. Comcast Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2006
- Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Maillet v. ATF-Davidson Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1990
- Northeast Data Systems, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Computer Systems CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.