Goddard v. Gen. Motors Corp. - 60 Ohio St. 2d 41, 396 N.E.2d 761 (1979)

Rule:

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.93(A)(1) provides that subject to the provisions of § 1302.93(B), (C), an agreement between car buyers and car sellers may limit or alter the measure of damages recoverable to the repair and replacement of non-conforming goods or parts. Pursuant to § 1302.93(B), where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in §§ 1301, 1302. Where an apparently fair and reasonable clause because of the circumstances fails in its purpose or operates to deprive either party of the substantial value of the bargain, it must give way to the general remedy provisions of the statutes.

Facts:

Appellant car buyer filed suit seeking recovery from the car companies for breach of warranty, requesting compensatory and punitive damages. The car buyer alleged that he had bought the vehicle with an express limited warranty and that the vehicle had been subject to so many problems within the warranty period that individual repairs were unable to correct the problems entirely. An initial judgment for the car buyer was reversed on review, and the car buyer appealed.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the buyer entitled to assert claims for recovery? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.93(A), (B), the car buyer could institute an action to recover for breach of warranty and for incidental and consequential damages in spite of the express warranty where the repair and replacement of individual parts had failed in its essential purpose. The court held that pursuant to § 1302.93(B), where an exclusive remedy such as the limited warranty in question had failed in its essential purpose, the car buyer was entitled to statutory remedies in addition to those in the express limited warranty, and therefore, the car buyer had been entitled to assert claims for recovery.