Cengage Advantage Books: Law for Business 19th Edition by John Ashcroft,Katherine Ashcroft,Martha Patterson

تمرين 20

Omni USA, Inc. purchased industrial oil seals from Parker-Hannifin Corp. and installed the seals in gearboxes that were then used in agricultural irrigation systems. In the initial price quote Parker gave Omni, Parker included notice of terms and conditions of the sale in capital letters and an enlarged font. Warranty language was included in the sale terms in bold print, stating: "THE SELLER WARRA NTS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF DELIVERY THAT THE PRODUCT IS FREE FROM DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP. THIS LIMITED WARRA NTY IS YOUR EXCLUSIVE WARRA NTY... THE PRODUCT IS NOT SOLD WITH ANY IMPLIED WARRA NTIES. NOR ANY WARRA NTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR OTHER WARRA NTY FOR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." More than a year later, Omni notified Parker that some of the gearboxes were leaking oil due to a manufacturing or design flaw with the oil seal. However, Omni discarded the deficient oil seals and was unable to present evidence that the deficient oil seals were from Parker, as compared to another vendor. Omni sued Parker for breach of express warranty. Parker argued that because Omni failed to give notice of a defective part within one year of the date of delivery and the disclaimer language was conspicuous, it were not liable for a breach of express warranty. Was Parker correct?