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

Johnson (P) sued Mobil (D) for losses suffered when the service station he was operating under a retail dealer contract was destroyed by fire. P alleges that the fire was caused by events following D’s delivery of gas containing water. P seeks to recover for the loss of inventory and other consequential damages. D moved for a partial summary judgment to dismiss the claim for consequential damages. This was based on a clause in the retail dealer contract that gave D immunity from such damages. D seeks to limit the recovery to P to difference money damages under 2-714(2); the difference between the value of the goods accepted and the value they should have been as warranted unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount. D relies on 2-719(3) for the premise that consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless limitation of exclusion is unconscionable and wherein limitation of damages for a commercial loss is not prima facie unconscionable. P contends the clause excluding consequential damages is unconscionable.

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.