Article 2B follows current Article 2 and does not regulate by setting a floor on the ability of parties to define remedies by contract. In Article 2, the idea of a minimum adequate remedy rule is noted in the Comments, but not the text of the Article. The Comments to current Article 2-719 tie the idea of a minimum adequate remedy to two legal analyses, both of which are present under this Draft. In one respect, they seem to refer to an idea of a failure of mutuality or consideration and resulting questions about the enforceability of the entire contract. Alternatively, the concept is connected in the comments to the idea of unconscionability, a standard against which all contract clauses are tested in this Article.
Personal injury caused by breach of contract is potentially a form of consequential damages.
Article 2B treats this type of claim as other losses. In the absence of a disclaimer, consequential damages are ordinarily recoverable. Disclaimer or limitation is permitted. In information contracts, modern cases do not use contract breach principles to create liability for personal injury against an information provider. In fact, for informational content, most cases do not allow personal injury recovery even under tort theories.