7/29/2023 0 Comments Flying wedge emailTo understand how to play the shot, you have to first learn about how backspin is created, master the fundamentals and practice. Typically, the low trajectory high spin wedge shot is done from 50-80 or 90 yards and is a great tool to have in your arsenal. Unlike the flop, it’s actually easier than you might think. I consider it as fun of a shot to pull off as the Phil Mickelson flop shot. The low flying knockdown spinning shot is great when you have a back pin and don’t want to risk sailing a lob wedge over the green. The one that hits the green, releases slightly and stops on a dime. You know… the pitch shot that every amateur golfer loves watching on TV but rarely pulls off in real life. We conclude that the district court correctly applied the governing statute, found the limitation unconscionable under the facts of this case, and awarded monetary damages to Rubber Tech.Do you want to finally learn how to hit the low trajectory high spin wedge shot? The statute further provides that consequential damages may be limited or excluded unless such limitation or exclusion is unconscionable. TENNESSEE CODE ANN., § 47-2-719 provides that an agreement may limit a seller's recovery unless circumstances cause such limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose. Under these circumstances, the district court found, any exclusion of consequential damages would be "unconscionable." The court specifically found that Rubber Tech was the victim of unfair surprise in purchasing an untested machine that was represented as having capabilities that were actually unproven and evidently unobtainable. Amplan's unsuccessful efforts to repair the machine within a reasonable time created a backlog of unfilled orders for Rubber Tech and the prospect of the loss of business. In other words, after weeks of attempting to cure the problem by replacing and repairing parts, the purchaser still did not have an operable machine. With respect to the second argument, the district court found that the limitation of remedies originally agreed to by the parties was not binding on Rubber Tech because it failed of its essential purpose. This argument by Amplan, stripped of its verbiage, is actually nothing more than a contention that the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. The evidence of its nonoperability was overwhelming. Because Amplan's technical experts could not themselves discover the precise cause of the failure of the machine to operate properly, it is clear that Rubber Tech had no burden of producing such pinpointed evidence. It is clear that the district court required Rubber Tech to establish more than the mere fact that the machine did not conform to Amplan's representations or to Rubber Tech's needs. These facts led to the "inescapable conclusion" that the Flying Wedge never worked properly and that the defendant was unable to identify and remedy the problems so it would operate properly and make commercially acceptable urethane products. The district court noted that the machine delivered to Rubber Tech was the first double action, push-pull machine Amplan had ever produced or sold, none had been produced or sold since, and Amplan never attempted to operate the machine or make a ratio check prior to shipping. The record and the district court's memorandum opinion totally refute this argument. In oral argument counsel for Amplan asserted that the district court treated this as a strict liability case, requiring the plaintiff to prove no more than the fact that the double action, push-pull Flying Wedge did not work.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |