Court Opinion

ID: 9851766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:19:18.690353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:14.931535
License: Public Domain

Judge Parker
dissenting:
There was here no showing or contention that the error in the listing of plaintiff’s name in defendant’s Yellow Pages was the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of defendant. In the absence of such a showing, I see no sound reason why the plain language of the exculpatory clause in the contract entered into between the parties should not be enforced. The majority refuses to do so “as a matter of public policy” because it finds the clause both “unreasonable” and “the direct conseauence of a real disnarity in bargaining nower.” Such disparity as here existed does not appear to me to be materially different from that which exists in many other situations. For example, it is not unusual that a local newspaper may become so dominant in its field of coverage that retail merchants in the area must either use its pages on the terms offered by the publisher or forego any effective newspaper advertising of their merchandise. We are not dealing here with a contract provision directly affecting defendant’s functions as a public utility, and I see no sound reason why defendant in this case should be treated differently from publishers of other advertising media. Nor do I see why sound public policy dictates that the courts should rewrite the contract entered into by the parties by deleting, on the grounds that it is “unreasonable,” a contract provision limiting liability of the publisher for consequences of an innocent mistake. The majority opinion relies heavily upon Allen v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 18 Mich. App. 632, 171 N.W. 2d 689 (1969). I find more persuasive the reasoning in such cases as McTighe v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Co., 216 F. 2d 26 (2nd Cir. 1954); Robinson Ins. & Real Est. Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 366 F. Supp. 307 (W.D. Ark. 1973) ; and State ex rel. Mt. States T. & T. Co. v. District Court, 160 Mont. 443, 503 P. 2d 526 (1972). See also Annot., 92 A.L.R. 2d 917 (1963). I vote to affirm.