Appeals Court Rules that “Size Matters”
A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals in the matter of Monitronics v. Veasley upheld a multi-million dollar jury award to an alarm company customer who suffered an in-home assault. The alarm company argued that their contract included a $250 limitation of liability for any service related losses. The Appeals Court, in a plurality opinion, agreed that the exculpatory language was otherwise “valid and binding”, but that it was simply in too small a print to be enforceable. In the Court’s language the liability clause was not sufficiently prominent, but was instead “written in the same small, single-spaced typeface as the majority of the contract.”
This interesting ruling will no doubt make companies think twice about the physical size of important contract clauses.
Renee Howdeshell
Renee Howdeshell is a founding member of Fulcrum Inquiry, an accounting, finance and economic consulting firm that performs damage analyses for commercial litigation, forensic accountings, royalty & distribution audits, financial investigations, and business valuations. Ms. Howdeshell holds a degree in Finance and Marketing from the University of Virginia's McIntire School of Commerce and is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE). She has testified as an expert witness in federal court, CA state court and arbitration regarding the results of her work. She can be reached at (213) 787-4112 and her resume is available at www.fulcrum.com.
Permanent link to this article: https://betweenthenumbers.net/2013/08/appeals-court-rules-that-size-matters/
