Whirlpool Case

Whirlpool Case

Whirlpool Corporation, No. Whirlpool Corporation Doc. Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant. Defendant Whirlpool Corporation Whirlpoola Whirlpool Case corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan, designs, manufactures, and sells numerous household appliances, including dishwashers. After inspecting the dishwasher, the repair technician allegedly advised Cleveland that the water leak resulted from a defective Seal, which was a defective product that could not be fixed.

Cleveland also alleges that the water leak damaged her tile grout. On September 4,Cleveland contacted Whirlpool and reported the defective Seal. Whirlpool advised Cleveland that the company would not replace the dishwasher.

Whirlpool Case That same day, Cleveland commenced this putative class-action lawsuit, which Whirlpool moved to dismiss on October 29, Cleveland subsequently filed an amended complaint complaint on November 25, The complaint includes nine counts. Counts I and II allege breach of express and implied warranty, respectively.

Case Details

Counts III and Whirlpool Case, pled in the alternative, allege breach of contract and unjust enrichment, respectively. Cleveland seeks both injunctive relief and damages. Whirlpool moves to dismiss all counts of the complaint for Whirlpool Case to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See Fed. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U. If a complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, dismissal is warranted. Blankenship v. USA Truck, Inc. Twombly, U. And legal conclusions couched as factual allegations may be disregarded. Because the durational limit on the warranty period is unconscionable, Cleveland argues, the limitation should not be enforced. Under Minnesota law, to state a claim for breach of express warranty, a plaintiff must allege 1 the existence of a warranty, 2 breach, and 3 a causal link between the breach and the alleged harm.

Sipe v.

Westinghouse Elec. Whirlpool disagrees, arguing that the warranty is neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.

Whirlpool LA4800XTG1 Transmission Gearcase (Neutral Drain Washers) - Genuine OEM

When doing so on a motion to dismiss, courts consider whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts as to unconscionability. See Whirlpool Case v. Yamaha Motor Corp. Makita U. See Johnson v. Bobcat Co. Minnesota law recognizes implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Any claim challenging an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness fails if the warranty has been disclaimed.]