Pierce v. Catalina Yachts, Inc.
Alaska Supreme Court
2 P.3d 618 (2000)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Jim and Karen Pierce (plaintiffs) bought a yacht from Catalina Yachts, Inc. (Catalina) (defendant). A pre-printed limited warranty, drafted by Catalina, provided that Catalina would repair any blisters in the hull’s coat, but disclaimed any responsibility for consequential damages. The Pierces discovered blisters in the hull’s coat and repeatedly requested that Catalina repair or pay for repairs of the hull. Catalina refused, and the Pierces sued. The superior court held that the warranty’s bar on consequential damages was not unconscionable, and limited the Pierces recovery to the cost of repair. The jury found that Catalina had breached the warranty, that the Pierces could not have avoided their damages, and that Catalina acted in bad faith in refusing to honor its warranty obligations. The jury awarded the Pierces their repair costs. The Pierces appealed the superior court’s denial of their consequential damages claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryner, 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.
