Opinion ID: 196794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Willful Breach Of Warranty

Text: 63 Napco's warranty excludes liability for consequential damages. By its terms, this damages limitation provision bars Cambridge Plating from recovering consequential damages and, under usual circumstances, would be enforceable. See Mass. Gen. L. ch. 106, § 2-719(3); Deerskin Trading Post, Inc. v. Spencer Press, Inc., 398 Mass. 118, 495 N.E.2d 303, 306 (1986). Massachusetts law provides, however, that the damages limitation provision is not enforceable if Napco either willfully repudiated or was willfully dilatory in performing its warranty obligations. Cf. Canal Elec. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 406 Mass. 369, 548 N.E.2d 182, 186 (1990). The jury concluded that Napco willfully repudiated or was dilatory in performing its warranty obligations. Napco claims this finding was not supported by the evidence and, in any event, was fatally tainted by the district court's state of mind supplemental instruction. 64 These arguments are worth only brief comment. Napco concedes that evidence it knew the static mixer was to blame might well amount to 'willful repudiation.'  Since Cambridge Plating adduced sufficient evidence of this fact, the willful breach of warranty verdict stands. 17 As for Napco's claim of instructional error, Napco's challenge suffers the same fate as it did on the intentional misrepresentation count: there was no objection and no plain error.