Opinion ID: 1179849
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: limited warranty

Text: Pacesetter appeals the trial court's order in limine order preventing it from introducing evidence of its limited warranty. Pacesetter argues that neither the trial court nor plaintiffs refuted the fact that its limited warranty complied with the statutory provision governing exclusion or modification of warranties. We conclude, however, that Pacesetter fails adequately to address HRS § 490:2-719 (1985), the primary obstacle to introduction of its limited warranty. The statute provides that [c]onsequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. Limitation of consequential damages for injury to the person in the case of consumer goods is prima facie unconscionable.... Pacesetter makes no attempt to rebut the presumption of unconscionability and appears, instead, to be arguing that persons who are not in privity with the seller of a product deserve a lesser level of protection under the UCC than those who are in privity. We find Pacesetter's arguments both unconvincing and contrary to the plain language of HRS § 490:2-318 which provides that a seller's warranty extends to any person who may reasonably be expected to use, consume or be affected by the goods.... We conclude that Pacesetter has failed to rebut the presumption of unconscionability under § 490:2-719.