Legal Opinion

Seibel v. Layne & Bowler, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 8, 1982No. 11,556, CA 19246PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOLMAN, S. J.

This is an action for breach of contract, breach of warranty and negligence. Plaintiffs seek to recover consequential damages allegedly caused by the failure of the pump, which they purchased from defendant, to function properly. Defendant contends that recovery is foreclosed by contract provisions which disclaim all but a relatively limited warranty and which deny consequential damages. After a hearing to determine whether the disclaimer provisions were unconscionable, the trial court determined that recovery was barred and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiffs…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. K-Lines, Inc. v. Roberts Motor CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. UtleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1969
  3. Atlas Mutual Insurance v. Moore Dry Kiln Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1979

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Cate v. Dover Corp.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Adams v. American Cyanamid Co.Nebraska Court of Appeals · 1992
  3. Agristor Credit Corp. v. SchmidlinDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1985
  4. Frazier v. Consolidated Equipment Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  5. Estey v. MacKenzie Engineering Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API