Opinion ID: 2024672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitation of Liability on Tort Claims

Text: The Court of Appeals held that even on tort theories, [4] because this litigation stems from a buyer's dissatisfaction with a purchased product, it is governed in large part by the sales provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. 601 N.E.2d at 441. The court then held that Rispens and Petoseed had effectively limited liability to the purchase price of the seed, whether the theory of recovery was contract or tort. Id. at 444. Hall Farms asserts that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied UCC provisions to the tort actions. Defendants respond that no principle of law prohibits commercial entities from limiting liability by contract where the only losses are economic. However tempted we may be to resolve this issue, our resolution of the viability of the strict liability in tort claims in part IV of this opinion renders this issue moot. The resolution of this issue, therefore, must await another case in which such issue arises.