Reference no: EM132247099

After their home burned, Dan and Karen Bennett thought about buying a mobile home from CMH Homes, Inc. They were concerned about the mobile home’s quality, but the sales agent assured them that it would be “more durable and of a higher quality than a conventionally built home.” They purchased the mobile home, and it was installed by CMH in accor- dance with the sales agreement, which warranted that the installation would be done according to applicable governmental requirements. At least one member of the installation crew was not appropriately licensed for the work. Before they closed their purchase, the Bennetts noticed various defects in the home. CMH assured them it would fix the problems, and the Bennetts closed based on that promise. A month after closing, the Bennetts provided CMH with a list of 35 problems, including damaged decks, doors that did not properly close, foundation cracks, and gutters that were not level. The Bennetts thought the problems had occurred because the house was not level, which a state inspector subsequently confirmed. Over the next two years, the Bennetts spoke with CMH representatives and the representatives made visits to the home, but the leveling issue was never fixed. The Bennetts eventually filed suit, alleging intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of war- ranty, and unconscionability.

1. Do the statements by the sales agent constitute inten- tional misrepresentation?

2. Did CMH breach the contract and its warranty?

3. The contract included a damages-limitation provision providing that CMH would not be required to pay any incidental or consequential damages. Is such a clause unconscionable?