Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): See, e.g., Employers Liab. Assurance Corp., 224 A.2d at 623. Nor does Section 2719 of the UCC apply. Instead, Pennsylvania common law controls the enforceability of the “Limitation of Liability” provision here and makes clear that said limitation is valid and enforceable. Lobianco, 437 A.2d at 420-21 (although case involved a sale of goods under Article 2 of UCC, court found § 2719(c) not applicable and therefore applied Pennsylvania common law in holding that a limitation of liability provision in contract for installation of security alarm system limiting liability to cost of repairs was enforceable, and noting clauses limiting liability in security alarm cases have uniformly been upheld in non-UCC cases); Wedner v. Fidelity Sec. Sys., Inc., 228 Pa.Super. 67, 307 A.2d 429, 432 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Magar v. Lifetime, Inc., 187 Pa.Super. 143, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that nolostprofits clause in parties agreement was not unconscionable as a matter of law in part because similar clause had been in the agreement between the parties for years (B) holding that a limitation on liability for stolen property in a contract between a jeweler and a burglar alarm company was valid and did not invoke the public service exception where the contractual provision in question was set out in the contract in bold print and neither party contended that the contract in question was not signed by it nor does the plaintiff deny its contents (C) holding in contract for burglar alarm system limitation of liability provision as to damages resulting from vendors own negligence was enforceable and not against public policy or unconscionable where agreement was between two private businesses and plaintiff had 20 years experience with similar provisions in similar service contracts with a competitor of the defendant (D) holding similar agreement void on public policy grounds (E) holding contract not unconscionable where parties were of equal bargaining power plaintiff had opportunity to have an attorney review the contract the contract was clear and easily read the plaintiff had been a party to similar contracts in the past and was under no financial pressure to sign the con tract
Output (English): holding that a limitation on liability for stolen property in a contract between a jeweler and a burglar alarm company was valid and did not invoke the public service exception where the contractual provision in question was set out in the contract in bold print and neither party contended that the contract in question was not signed by it nor does the plaintiff deny its contents