Paul Gottlieb & Co. v. Alps South Corp. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A seller’s limitation of consequential damages clause, included in its standard form, was found not to materially alter the contract under UCC § 2-207 and was therefore enforceable, precluding the buyer’s claim for lost profits.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that under UCC § 2-207(2), a limitation of consequential damages clause is not a per se material alteration and becomes part of the contract unless the party opposing inclusion proves surprise or hardship.
Paul Gottlieb & Co. v. Alps South Corp. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Paul Gottlieb & Co. (Gottlieb), a fabric supplier, and Alps South Corp. (Alps), a medical device manufacturer, entered into a contract for specialty fabric. Gottlieb’s standard finished goods contract, used in multiple transactions between the parties, contained a clause on the reverse side disclaiming liability for consequential damages, including lost profits. Gottlieb later substituted a different yarn in the fabric without notifying Alps, leading to defects in Alps’ products. Alps incurred significant losses, including recalled products and destroyed inventory. When Gottlieb sued for nonpayment, Alps counterclaimed for breach of warranty, seeking consequential damages. The trial court found the limitation of liability clause to be a material alteration under UCC § 2-207(2) and thus not part of the contract, awarding Alps consequential damages. Gottlieb appealed, arguing the clause was enforceable. Alps had not informed Gottlieb of the specific, specialized use of the fabric or the potential for substantial consequential damages if the fabric was non-conforming. Alps also did not object to the clause in prior dealings.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err in concluding that a limitation of consequential damages clause, included as an additional term in the seller’s acceptance form, materially altered the contract between merchants under Florida’s UCC § 672.207(2), thereby rendering it unenforceable?
Yes, the trial court erred. The limitation of consequential damages clause did Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the trial court err in concluding that a limitation of consequential damages clause, included as an additional term in the seller’s acceptance form, materially altered the contract between merchants under Florida’s UCC § 672.207(2), thereby rendering it unenforceable?
Conclusion
This case reinforces that limitation of consequential damages clauses are generally not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Legal Rule
Under Florida Statute § 672.207(2) (UCC § 2-207(2)), between merchants, additional terms Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lo
Legal Analysis
The court applied UCC § 2-207 to the "battle of the forms" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. D
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under UCC § 2-207(2), the party opposing an additional term bears