Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!wales From: wales@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Question on incidental/consequential damages Message-ID: <5515@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Fri, 17-May-85 21:04:24 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5515 Posted: Fri May 17 21:04:24 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 01:35:51 EDT Reply-To: wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (Rich Wales) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 63 This is a question on the exclusion of liability for incidental and/or consequential damages in warranties. A handful of U.S. states (I don't remember them off the top of my head; Consumer Reports published a list in an article a few months ago; Cali- fornia, where I live, is NOT one of them) have laws prohibiting any exclusion of liability for incidental/consequential damages in a product warranty. I don't know what the situation is in Canada regarding such exclusions -- though since I know there are several "net.legal" readers in Canada, I'm sure someone will enlighten me! :-} Anyway . . . Consider the warranty on my car's alarm system. It contains the follow- ing provisions: (1) A sweeping disclaimer of liability for incidental/consequential dam- ages -- with the usual note that since some states do not allow such exclusion of liability, this provision "may not apply to you". (Of course, it DOES apply to ME, since I live in California.) (2) A specific insistence that the alarm system is only a deterrent to theft, and that no guarantee or insurance is provided against theft of the car. (3) A requirement that the warranty against defects in the alarm system is completely null and void unless the system was installed by a professional alarm installer. I have two questions -- somewhat interconnected, and both (fortunately) strictly hypothetical: (1) Suppose I lived in one of the seven or eight states which ban the exclusion of incidental/consequential damages, and my car (with said alarm system installed) were stolen. Would the warranty's disclaimer of guarantee/insurance against the theft of my car -- point #2 above -- be rejected as an impermissible attempt to exclude liability for consequential damages? (2) The requirement that the system be installed by a pro in order for defects in the alarm unit to be covered by the warranty seems very strange to me. It has been pointed out (and rightly so) that a car alarm system is of little value in protecting your car unless it is installed by a competent technician -- but since the warranty al- ready specifically excludes coverage for theft of the car anyway, this doesn't seem to be a relevant concern. Is the real explanation, perhaps, that the alarm company has no way of protecting itself against damage claims if a car was stolen in a state prohibiting the exclusion of consequential damages, and that they are therefore taking the next best step of demanding profes- sional installation -- so that they will at least know that the sys- tem was put in right and will thus PROBABLY prevent the theft of the car? Any ideas on the above two questions would be most welcome -- especially if backed up by "cites" to statute or case law, but even if not. -- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA ARPA: wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA -or- wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!wales