Opinion ID: 444210
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 13 Fruehauf argues that the trial court erred in its rulings concerning the Washington version of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Sec. 2-719, Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 62A.2-719. 2 The April 13, 1977 sales order contains a limitation-of-remedies clause which purports to limit the buyer's remedies to repair or replacement. Such a clause is valid only if that remedy fulfills its essential purpose when the buyer seeks to enforce it. Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 62A.2-719(2). The trial court held that as a matter of law Fruehauf's limited remedy failed of its essential purpose. In its order denying a new trial, the court stated that the facts show nothing but a callous disregard by [Fruehauf] for the purposes for which the exclusive repair-or-replacement remedy was designed--to insure that [Fiorito] would acquire defect-free trucks. Fruehauf raises two objections to the trial court's decision on this issue: first, that this was a question for the jury; and second, that the court's substantive conclusion was incorrect. 14