Which statement describes when a limitation of remedy is unconscionable?

Which statement describes when a limitation of remedy is unconscionable?

• A. The limitation is stated in the contract as “no damages” but only for non-consumer goods.
• B. The limitation provides that damages are unlimited.
• C. The limitation is unconscionable if consumer goods and personal injury.
• D. The limitation applies only to economic damages.

Answer: (C)

In contract law, a limitation of remedy is unconscionable when it tries to bar recovery for serious injuries caused by goods in a consumer transaction. Courts won’t allow a term that excludes or severely limits damages for personal injury resulting from defective consumer goods because that would leave the injured consumer with no meaningful remedy and conflicts with public policy in product safety. That’s why describing the limitation as unconscionable when it covers consumer goods and personal injury is the best fit. It captures the scenario where a remedy cap or exclusion would strip away the ability to recover for injuries caused by the product, which is generally deemed unacceptable.

In contract law, a limitation of remedy is unconscionable when it tries to bar recovery for serious injuries caused by goods in a consumer transaction. Courts won’t allow a term that excludes or severely limits damages for personal injury resulting from defective consumer goods because that would leave the injured consumer with no meaningful remedy and conflicts with public policy in product safety.

That’s why describing the limitation as unconscionable when it covers consumer goods and personal injury is the best fit. It captures the scenario where a remedy cap or exclusion would strip away the ability to recover for injuries caused by the product, which is generally deemed unacceptable.