This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and D entered into two contracts, one for the sale of the equipment, programming and installation services and another for maintenance of the computer system. Each of these contracts is comprised of a single sheet of paper printed on both sides. The bottom of the front side of the contracts states in bold type 'Terms and Conditions on Reverse Side Are Part of This Contract.' Paragraph 5 on the reverse side of the equipment contract states: for a period of one (1) year after the program is delivered, D will make every reasonable effort to remedy or correct any errors in the program which are brought to its attention. It also states: THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THE DESCRIPTION ON THE FACE OR REVERSE SIDE HEREOF. IN NO EVENT SHALL D BE LIABLE TO P FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR OTHER ECONOMIC LOSS, INCLUDING SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER SIMILAR DAMAGES. The contract also had an integration clause which stated: 'This contract contains the entire agreement between the parties, and shall be binding upon both parties and their respective heirs, successors and/or assigns.' The Maintenance Contract contains a similar disclaimer clause which reads 'EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED HEREIN, THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THE DESCRIPTION CONTAINED HEREIN.' Maryland law was to govern the agreement. Ps sued D claiming the computer failed to operate properly. P sued for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of fitness, and negligent design. D moved to dismiss.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.