Potomac Constructors, LLC v. EFCO 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 contractor sued its supplier for delays and defects in custom-made bridge components. The court enforced the contract’s limitation of remedies to “repair or replacement” and its exclusion of consequential and delay damages, finding the limited remedy did not fail its essential purpose under the UCC.
Legal Significance: Reinforces that sophisticated commercial parties can contractually limit remedies under UCC § 2-719. An exclusive “repair or replacement” remedy for custom goods does not fail its essential purpose merely because of performance issues, so long as the seller ultimately provides a working product.
Potomac Constructors, LLC v. EFCO 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
Potomac Constructors, LLC (“Potomac”), the general contractor for a major bridge project, contracted with EFCO Corp. (“EFCO”) to supply custom-engineered steel formwork for casting concrete. The $2.075 million purchase order was for a time-sensitive project with penalties for delays. The contract contained a “WARRANTY AND CONDITIONS” section that explicitly limited EFCO’s liability to the “repair or replacement of any defective property” and stated EFCO “shall, in no event, be liable for any additional or consequential damages.” A separate clause stated EFCO “assumes no liability for loss or damage arising from delay.” When EFCO’s deliveries were late and the formwork was defective, causing significant project delays, Potomac sued for $13 million, alleging breach of contract and negligence. Potomac argued that the exclusive “repair and replacement” remedy was unenforceable because it had failed its essential purpose under UCC § 2-719(2). EFCO moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to enforce the contractual limitations on damages.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a contractual clause limiting a buyer’s remedy to the repair or replacement of defective goods and excluding consequential and delay damages be enforced under UCC § 2-719 when the custom-made goods require significant repairs but are ultimately made usable?
Yes. The court granted partial summary judgment for the defendant, holding that 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 s
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
Can a contractual clause limiting a buyer’s remedy to the repair or replacement of defective goods and excluding consequential and delay damages be enforced under UCC § 2-719 when the custom-made goods require significant repairs but are ultimately made usable?
Conclusion
This case illustrates the high bar for invalidating a limited remedy clause 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 ul
Legal Rule
Under Maryland's adoption of UCC § 2-719, parties in a commercial transaction 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 i
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the enforceability of the contract's limitation of 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. Duis aut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A contract’s limitation of liability clause barring incidental, consequential, and delay