Rinaldi v. Iomega Corp. - C.A. No. 98C-09-064 RRC, 1999 Del. Super. LEXIS 563 (Super. Ct. Sep. 3, 1999)

Rule:

The commercial practicalities of modern retail purchasing make it eminently reasonable for a seller of a product to place a disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability within the plastic packaging. The buyer can read the disclaimer after payment and then later have the opportunity to reject the contract terms (i.e., the disclaimer) if the buyer so chooses.

Facts:

This proposed class action was commenced in September 1998 on behalf of all persons who have purchased purportedly defective "Zip drives" from January 1, 1995 to the present. The Zip drives are manufactured by defendant Iomega Corporation, a computer storage device maker incorporated in Delaware and based in Utah. A Zip drive is a large capacity personal computer data storage drive. The complaint alleged inter alia that the alleged defect, said by Plaintiffs to be commonly known as the "Click of Death," causes irreparable damage to the removable magnetic media storage disks on which the drives store data. Plaintiffs also alleged that the defect renders the data on the disks unreadable and that when another drive attempts to read the data from a disk that has been infected, the defect transfers to the second drive, causing further damage. Iomega moved to dismiss the complaint alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, consumer fraud, and negligent failure to warn of product risks.

Issue:

Did Iomega fail to satisfy the conspicuous requirement of Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2-316 because the disclaimer was located inside the packaging?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed plaintiffs' count alleging breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, rejecting arguments that Iomega failed to satisfy the conspicuous requirement of Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2-316 because the disclaimer was located inside the packaging. Specifically, the commercial practicalities of modern retail purchasing made it eminently reasonable for Iomega to place its disclaimer within the plastic packaging, where plaintiffs could read the disclaimer after payment and decide then whether to reject it. Further, plaintiffs stated their negligence counts with sufficient particularity where the underlying facts remained more in Iomega’s hands.