{
  "id": 1627399,
  "name": "Lindy GRAMLING v. Henry BALTZ, d/b/a LAWRENCE COUNTY EQUIPMENT Co. and INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER Company, A Foreign Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gramling v. Baltz",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-26",
  "docket_number": "5-5905",
  "first_page": "361",
  "last_page": "363",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 361"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "485 S.W.2d 183"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "250 Ark. 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1636831
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/250/0176-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 L. Ed. 2d 138",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 S. Ct. 138",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "400 U.S. 902",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12093761,
        12093794,
        12093702,
        12093446,
        12093545,
        12093482,
        12093870,
        12093653,
        12093913,
        12093595
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/400/0902-07",
        "/us/400/0902-08",
        "/us/400/0902-06",
        "/us/400/0902-01",
        "/us/400/0902-03",
        "/us/400/0902-02",
        "/us/400/0902-09",
        "/us/400/0902-05",
        "/us/400/0902-10",
        "/us/400/0902-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "422 F. 2d 1013",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2254753
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/422/1013-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 Ark. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1604066
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/246/0152-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 294,
    "char_count": 4065,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.807,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.805990951463653e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8371995819061265
    },
    "sha256": "8564c05e5f99422f61119c465e0f5ad6ae51d36541ef0660f70d718fdc3b342d",
    "simhash": "1:f75ee9038555fd06",
    "word_count": 644
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Harris, C. J., and George Rose Smith, J., would grant the rehearing."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Lindy GRAMLING v. Henry BALTZ, d/b/a LAWRENCE COUNTY EQUIPMENT Co. and INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER Company, A Foreign Corporation"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nOn rehearing International Harvester Company contends that it made no warranty of fitness and that the court erred in holding International\u2019s exclusionary language was not sufficiently conspicuous to preclude consequential damages.\nOn the record as abstracted the evidence is insufficient to show an implied warranty of fitness. However, there is ample evidence to support appellant\u2019s claim to the implied warranty of merchantability. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-2-3-14 (Add. 1961). Of course, on a new trial the evidence will not necessarily be the same, but proof of either warranty was sufficient to warrant the submission of the damage issues to the jury.\nWith reference to the second point argued on rehearing, International contends as follows:\n\u201cThe other oversight was in the assumption that because the International Harvester Company\u2019s disclaimer is \u201cinconspicuous\u201d as a matter of law, it is also unenforceable. We conceded the former, but there is absolutely no requirement in the Uniform Commercial Code that a limitation of remedy to repair of defects and excluding damages must be \u2018conspicuous.\u2019 \u201d\nIn one respect International is correct. By Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-2-719 (3) (Add. 1961) the only restriction on the limitation or exclusion of consequential damages is that such limitation or exclusion cannot be \u201cunconscionable.\u201d However, it does not follow that consequential damages were here limited or excluded. International\u2019s \u201cNew Motor Vehicle Warranty\u201d and \u201cFive Star Warranty on Major Components\u201d after warranting \u201c. . . each new International motor vehicle to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service. . .\u201d then provides: \u201cThis warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied, . . ., and all other obligations or liabilities, including liability for incidental and consequential damages . . .\u201d When we consider that \u201cin lieu of\u201d means \u201cin the place of\u201d or \u201cinstead of,\u201d then International\u2019s alleged disclaimer can amount to nothing more than an assertion that the warranty against defects in material and workmanship is in the place of all \u201cliability for incidental and consequential damages.\u201d Such an assertion falls short of a limitation or exclusion. In this respect it differs little from the \u201cStandard Warranty\u201d which we held defective as a disclaimer in Marion Power Shovel Co. v. Huntsman, 246 Ark. 152, 437 S.W. 2d 784 (1969).\nIt would have been easy for International to have provided in clear and unmistakable language that it would not be liable for consequential damages, as was the case in Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 422 F. 2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1970), Cert. den. 400 U.S. 902, 91 S. Ct. 138, 27 L. Ed. 2d 138 (1970). Here the alleged disclaimer does not provide that the limitation of remedy for breach of the express warranty is in lieu of consequential damages for breach of implied warranties.\nIn this respect, the warranty here does not differ materially from that involved in Ford Motor Co. v. Reid, 250 Ark. 176, 465 S.W. 2d 80 (1971). In that case we called attention to the difference between obligations and remedies, holding that, under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 85-2-719 (1) (b) which provides that resort to a remedy provided is optional, unless the remedy is expressly- agreed to be exclusive, there must be language in the warranty form expressly stating that the repair remedy is exclusive of any other remedy the buyer might have. The exclusionary language in the warranty given Gramling is no more express than that in the Ford Motor Co. warranty.\nFor the reasons herein stated the petition for rehearing is denied.\nHarris, C. J., and George Rose Smith, J., would grant the rehearing.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ray Goodwin, for appellant.",
      "Henry Ponder and John C. Calhoun, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lindy GRAMLING v. Henry BALTZ, d/b/a LAWRENCE COUNTY EQUIPMENT Co. and INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER Company, A Foreign Corporation\n5-5905\n485 S.W. 2d 183\nSupplemental Opinion on Denial of rehearing delivered October 23, 1972\nOriginal Opinion delivered June 26, 1972\nRay Goodwin, for appellant.\nHenry Ponder and John C. Calhoun, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0361-01",
  "first_page_order": 399,
  "last_page_order": 401
}