Court Opinion

ID: 9681219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:46:09.780937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.725140
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Justice,
dissenting.
While there is no case directly in point in Texas, many courts in other states have been called upon to determine if disclaimers were conspicuous under statutes similar to or the same as Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 2.316 (Vernon 1968 & Supp.1989).
The following is the disclaimer which Dover Corporation made a part of its contract with Edward Cate, Jr. and which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit A.
*684Sjj0 And, when JfW ^ you’re through, it’ll be just as solid as the No. 1 lift company in America. Rotary. Not so with some of the other companies. They may offer you a multi-year warranty, too. But you’re likely to discover it's limited to parts only. And, hidden in all the mumbo-jumbo, you may find out — too late — that their beautifully worded "warranty" doesn’t even cover major components... like power units. So what you really have Is a great warranty that covers almost nothing. We at Rotary are proud of the surface lift products we manufacture. And we don't have to "play it safe” when it comes to guaranteeing them. Here’s what our new 5-year warranty says: All Rotary Surface Mounted Lifts are guaranteed to the original owner for five years from invoice date. Rotary Lift Division here after is known as "The Company”. The Company shall replace for the full five years those parts returned to the factory which prove upon inspection by the Company to be defective. The Company shall pay for reasonable costs of transportation and labor for replacement of said parts for the first 12 months only. Purchaser will bear costs of transportation and labor for parts returned after the first year and the remainder of this warranty. This warranty shall not apply unless the product is installed, used and maintained in accordance with the Company’s specifications as set forth in the Company’s installation, operation and maintenance instructions. This warranty does not cover normal maintenance or ad' justments, damage uirrrrrtv or malfunction caused by improper handling, installation, abuse, misuse, negligence or carelessness of operation. This warranty is exclusive and is in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied including any implied warranty of merchantability or any implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, which implied warranties are hereby expressly excluded. The remedies described are exclusive and in no event shall the Company be liable for special, consequential or incidental damages for the breach of or delay in performance of the warranty. This warranty shall be governed by the State of Indiana, and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of the State of Indiana in the County of Jefferson. BLUE
*685The court in Massey-Ferguson, Inc. v. Utley, 439 S.W.2d 57 (Ken.Ct.App.1969), cited in U.C.C. § 12-5 (1980), used language that well describes the disclaimer in the present case:
It is true the heading was in large, boldface type, but there was nothing to suggest that an exclusion was being made; on the contrary, the words of the heading indicated a making of warranties rather than a disclaimer.
Dover has cleverly buried the disclaimer provision within language that strongly suggests a warranty that greatly benefits the consumer. The bold print language suggests that warranties were included rather than excluded. See Mallory v. Co-nida Warehouses, 350 N.W.2d 825, 134 Mich.App. 28 (1984).
In the case of Blankenship v. North-town Ford, 420 N.E.2d 167, 50 Ill.Dec. 850, 95 Ill.App.3d 303 (1981), the court said that the heading “Factory Warranty” was misleading and that a disclaimer which follows a misleading heading cannot be deemed to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code. In the case of Richards v. Goerg Boat & Motors, 384 N.E.2d 1084, 179 Ind.App. 102 (1979), the Indiana court found that disclaimer language included in the context of a warranty was not effective.* In the case of Seibel v. Layne & Bowler, 641 P.2d 668, 56 Or.App. 387, rev. denied 648 P.2d 852, 293 Or. 190 (1982), the Oregon court found that a disclaimer was not conspicuous when only the paragraph heading “Warranty” stood out and suggested the making of the warranties, not their exclusion. In the case of Hartman v. Jensen’s, Inc., 289 S.E.2d 648, 277 S.C. 501 (1982), the South Carolina court held that the placing of a disclaimer of implied warranty of merchantability under the bold heading “Terms of Warranty” created an ambiguity that was likely to fail to alert the consumer that an exclusion of warranty was intended.
The exclusion in the present case is not conspicuous as required by Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 2.316, and this case should be reversed and remanded for trial.

 The language in the warranty states that, "This warranty shall be governed by the State of Indiana_