Home > business, business law, fintech, litigation, startups > Business Law Update: You have Terms and Conditions, but are they CONSPICUOUS?

Business Law Update: You have Terms and Conditions, but are they CONSPICUOUS?

Business Owners – ask yourself:

When selling or buying, what are in my company’s Terms and Conditions?

You can check out some of my prior posts on Terms and Conditions. “TnCs” are important to review closely. TnCs “allocate risk” among the two parties to the contract. In some instances, even if one party never reads the TnCs.

Recent Case…

On November 29th, a Court of Appeals case was issued stemming from a product sold by a business to a customer. The case: John French Jr. v Ben’s Super Center

This case involved “the sale of a defective outdoor wood furnace”

Facts:

“On May 21, 2011, after meeting with defendant’s salesman, Todd Kaatz, and having a fairly lengthy discussion with him regarding purchasing an outdoor wood furnace for his home, plaintiff purchased an outdoor wood furnace, (“Optimizer 250″) from Ben’s Supercenter for $12,000.00.” Id. at pg 1.

Defendant delivered the Optimizer 250 to plaintiff’s property and plaintiff installed it.

Sometime around Christmas of 2011, after plaintiff had been using the furnace for about three weeks, he began to have trouble with its performance and contacted Kaatz for help.

“Kaatz…came to plaintiff’s property and inspected the furnace, but they were unable to determine why the furnace was operating inefficiently.”

After several years of attempting to work with the manufacturer and “retrofit” to make the furnace work, Plaintiff sued Defendant.

Plaintiff raised about of claims, variations of “breach warranties”.

Among other things, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant had breached an “implied warranty of merchantability.”

Essentially, it is implied in a sale of goods that what the buyer is getting, he or she will be able to use for the purpose it is generally intended to be used for.

Michigan law allows a business to exclude such warranties.

So the question is: did this business properly exclude any such warranties?

Answer: No.

Under MCL 440.2316 if a business is going to exclude such warranty, it must do so in CONSPICUOUS LANGUAGE. According to the statute, conspicuous “means so written, displayed, or presented that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it.” Id. pg 4.

In this case, the business pointed not to any of its own terms and conditions, but to the manufacturer’s handbook, which had one line that stated: “No other warranty is expressed or implied.” Id. Pg 5.

As the Court noted – this was not conspicuous language.

The Court upheld the verdict in favor of Plaintiff.

Take Away on Terms and Conditions

  1. Read the Terms and Conditions

Enough said.

2. Implement Terms and Conditions

I recommend business clients to always include a Terms and Conditions page that is either attached to the back of their physical Purchase Orders, or is included in their Website and incorporated by reference. The Terms and Conditions will, essentially, allocate risk and liability, on such items like:

  • warranties (what is the provider guaranteeing and what isn’t it?) As emphasized by the French case – disclaimers need to be CONSPICUOUSLY IDENTIFIED.
  • payment terms (when and how is payment accepted? Late fees?)
  • remedies (what is your recourse in the event the goods aren’t what the buyer expected? Are your damages limited to a refund, or can you get related damages as well? Can attorney fees be covered?
  • Venue – (where can you bring your dispute? An arbitrator? Who pays the fees? Is the location of the arbitration specified?

3. Enforce Terms and Conditions

And of course, its important that a business enforces its terms. I have had clients who have been sued before and forgot of their advantageous language in their terms and conditions. If a business is sued and it waits too long in the litigation before raising its right to arbitration, the court very well might consider the business to have “waived its right” to arbitration. Although, “Waiver of a contractual right to arbitrate is disfavored” by the Courts. Best v Park W Galleries, Inc, No. 305317, 2013 WL 4766678 (Mich Ct App September 5, 2013), app den 495 Mich 979 (2014).

Questions?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: