The Lost Profit Clause and the Mitigation Dispute
A software company contracts with a regional retailer to supply a customized inventory system for $400,000, payable in four $100,000 installments. The contract contains a clause: "Seller shall not be liable for any lost profits, consequential damages, or damages arising from Buyer's business operations." After the second installment, the seller delivers a system that crashes whenever inventory exceeds 10,000 SKUs, which the retailer routinely exceeds. The retailer stops paying the third installment, demands a fix, and the seller refuses, claiming the retailer's use exceeded specifications. The retailer spends $150,000 licensing a replacement system and loses $300,000 in profits during the transition. The seller sues for the unpaid installments; the retailer counterclaims for the replacement cost and lost profits.
1. Is the limitation-of-liability clause enforceable against the retailer's claims? Analyze.
Read the worked answer
The clause is likely enforceable as to lost profits but not as to the replacement cost, depending on characterization. Under the UCC, consequential-damages limitations in commercial contracts are generally enforceable unless unconscionable. Both parties are merchants, so the clause is presumptively valid. The retailer's $300,000 lost-profits claim falls squarely within the exclusion for "lost profits" and "damages arising from Buyer's business operations," so it is barred. The $150,000 replacement cost is trickier: if characterized as direct damages (the cost of cover - obtaining substitute goods), it falls outside a clause that excludes only consequential and lost-profit damages. Courts read exclusions narrowly and will not extend them to direct damages unless clearly stated. Because the clause does not mention direct or cover damages, the replacement cost likely survives. The clause does not excuse the seller's own breach or failure of the essential purpose of the contract's remedy.
2. Did the retailer act properly in withholding the third installment? Discuss the doctrine and any risk.
Read the worked answer
The retailer's withholding is defensible but carries risk. Under the UCC, when one party's breach is material, the aggrieved party may suspend its own performance and withhold payment. A system that fails at ordinary volumes may be a material breach going to the essence of the contract, justifying suspension. However, the retailer must give adequate assurance and notice, and it cannot simply keep the benefits while refusing to pay. The safer course is to notify the seller of the defect, demand cure, and withhold only the amount in dispute. If a court finds the breach was not material - for example, if the system worked for most transactions - the retailer could be liable for the withheld installments plus interest. The retailer should document the failure at 10,000+ SKUs and treat withholding as a good-faith dispute rather than an outright repudiation.
3. Assume the seller's refusal to fix is an anticipatory repudiation. What are the retailer's options and the measure of damages?
Read the worked answer
If the seller anticipatorily repudiated, the retailer may (1) await performance for a commercially reasonable time, (2) resort to any remedy for breach, or (3) in appropriate cases suspend its own performance. The retailer may cover by obtaining substitute goods and recover the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price, plus incidental and consequential damages less expenses saved. Here the $150,000 replacement cost is recoverable as cover if reasonable. Lost profits of $300,000 would ordinarily be recoverable if foreseeable, but the limitation clause bars them. The retailer must mitigate by acting reasonably and promptly; it cannot recover losses it could have avoided. The seller's unpaid installments would be offset by the retailer's cover damages, and the retailer should give notice of the breach to preserve its remedies.