McCarty v. E.J. Korvette, Inc.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
347 A.2d 253 (1975)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Frances McCarty (plaintiff) bought tires from E.J. Korvette, Inc. (Korvette) (defendant). The sales contract stated that the tires were guaranteed for 36,000 miles against all road hazards, including blowout. The warranty stated that if a tire failed, Korvette would replace the tire. The warranty also stated that Korvette would not be liable for consequential damages, and otherwise limited Korvette’s liability to the replacement of damaged tires. One of McCarty’s tires blew out while under warranty, causing injury to McCarty. McCarty brought suit for breach of warranty. At trial, Korvette presented no evidence that its limitation of consequential damages was not unconscionable. The trial court granted Korvette’s motion for a directed verdict. McCarty appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davidson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.