Lincoln Composites, Inc. (plaintiff) bought defective tubing from Firetrace USA, LLC (defendant). Firetrace repeatedly tried but failed to fix the defect. After 18 months, Lincoln demanded a refund. Firetrace refused, citing the limited repair-or-replace warranty in its contract. Lincoln sued, asserting that Lincoln’s purchase orders referenced terms on its website that did not limit its remedies, and that the repair-and-replace warranty had failed its essential purpose. Lincoln’s experts testified that the remaining tubing would continue to fail. Firetrace requested a jury instruction with specific language about when a repair-or-replacement remedy fails its essential purpose but did not object when the court gave a more general instruction that it was up to the jury to decide how many attempts and a how long a seller should have to fix a defect before a repair-or-replace warranty failed. After the jury awarded Lincoln $900,000, Firetrace requested a new trial, arguing that the evidence did not support the verdict, the jury improperly found that Lincoln’s terms controlled, and the court should have given Firetrace’s requested jury instruction.