Legal Opinion
Pierce v. Catalina Yachts, Inc.
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided May 19, 2000No. S-8394, S-8403PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRYNER, Justice.
I,. INTRODUCTION
After finding that Catalina Yachts, a sailboat manufacturer, breached its limited warranty to repair a defect in a boat that it sold to Jim and Karen Pierce, a jury awarded the Pierces monetary damages for the reasonable cost of repair. Before submitting the case to the jury, the trial court dismissed the Pierces' claim for consequential damages, finding it barred by an express provision in the warranty. On appeal, the Pierces contend that they were entitled to consequential damages despite this provision. We agree, holding that because Catalina acted in…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- McDermott, Inc. v. AmClydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Milgard Tempering, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Selas Corporation of America, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- S. M. Wilson & Company v. Smith International, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
- American Electric Power Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1976
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLCIllinois Supreme Court · 2006
- Razor v. Hyundai Motor AmericaIllinois Supreme Court · 2006
- Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 2007
- Donahue v. Ledgends, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2014
- Catalina Yachts v. PierceAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.