Construction Web guide: infrastructure, buildings, engineering, architecture
Web directory of federal, state, local governments; courts; legislatures; Congress; trade groups; businesses; colleges; libraries; publications; international agencies affecting construction, engineering, architecture, infrastructure Web directory of resources on licensing, registration, building codes, new projects, bidding, financing, environment, specifications, e-commerce, laws, regulations, insurance, bonds, jobs, safety, best practices, engineering, architecture, training Web guide to dictionaries; encyclopedias; reference materials; business and international travel resources; people finders; telephone numbers; Web addresses; postal codes; currency, metric converters; time zones; calendars; travel; news
More than 500 online news and legal reports on construction law, including claims, payment remedies, damages, government contracting, insurance, building codes, licensing, technology, arbitration, engineering, architecture, infrastructure
Site Search Site Map Registration About CWL ConstructionWebLinks Contact Us

Federal Preemption
Developer's Claim for Indemnity Against Architect for ADA and FHA Violations Rejected

Not Like Private Deals
City Contract May Not Be Modified Orally or by Course of Dealing, Court Holds

Business Risk Exclusion
CGL Insurer that Refused to Defend, Pay Claim Penalized, Held Liable

Little Known Hazard
Plumbers Burned as a Result of Natural Gas 'Odor Fade,' but Damage Award Reversed

Could Apply Broadly
Design Professional Denied Protection of Contract's Liability Limit by Florida Court

Part Of Lung Removed
Contractor Escapes Liability When Plaintiff Cannot Tie Infectious Fungus to Jobsite Dirt Stockpile

Disgorgement Order
Court Allows Discharge in Bankruptcy of Penalty for Violation of Contractor Licensing Law

Obligations Discharged
When Surety Takes Over Project, Owner Cannot Object to Replacement Contractor, Court Holds

Default Judgment
Notice, Accident, Own Work Defenses Rejected in Claims by General Contractor Against Plumber's Insurer

Previous Issues

Construction Industry News

Contractor Denied Recovery for $1.95 Million Bidding Error Caused by Allegedly Defective Software


September 18, 2000


Back to Industry Newsletters
 

ConstructionWebLinks.com

The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the liability limitations in a software license agreement even though an alleged defect in the software caused a contractor to underbid a project by $1.95 million. M.A. Mortenson Co., Inc. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568, 998 P.2d 305 (2000)

Contractor M. A. Mortenson Co. used computer bid preparation software in bidding on a Seattle medical center construction project. Mortenson was low bidder. After its bid was accepted, Mortenson discovered that the software apparently had undercalculated the bid by $1.95 million.

Mortenson bought the software with a purchase order issued to an authorized dealer for the software company, who helped install the software. The software was shrink-wrapped. The manufacturer's licensing agreement was printed on each diskette pouch for the software and on the inside cover of the instruction manual. It limited recovery of any damages resulting from use of the software to the purchase price of the software. It disclaimed consequential damages. The license agreement told purchasers that if they did not agree to the terms, they could return the software for a complete refund.

The software generated 19 error messages on the day the bid was submitted. Mortenson nevertheless submitted the bid generated by the software. Discovery revealed that Timberline was aware of the bug that caused the error message received by Mortenson but had deemed it not to be a "major problem," believing it unlikely to occur during use.

Mortenson sued Timberline Software Corporation for the $1.95 million underbid. However, the trial court granted summary judgment to Timberline, the appellate court affirmed and the Washington Supreme Court also affirmed.

Mortenson argued that the purchase order, which contained no liability limits, and not the license agreement defined the parties' contract and that the damage limitation was unenforceable and unconscionable.

All of the courts held that the shrink-wrap license agreement was a valid way of contracting under Washington law and the Uniform Commercial Code. Thus, the terms of the license agreement were part of the contract.

The Supreme Court also determined that the liability limitation was not unconscionable. It held that the issue of unconscionability deals with the parties' allocation of risk at the time of contracting and is not applicable to latent defects such as the subsequently discovered software bug.

It also held that the shrink-wrap agreement was not procedurally unconscionable because it was conspicuously displayed. The court also noted that Mortenson was a sophisticated software buyer and elsewhere noted that the license agreement allowed Mortenson to return the software and obtain a refund if it did not accept the terms of the software license agreement.

Mortenson also argued that it had not read the license agreement and, therefore, should not be bound by it. The court held that the agreement was enforceable because Mortenson had a chance to read the agreement but did not.

This case is important to companies that use software for several reasons. The Washington Supreme Court was very clear in finding that shrink-wrap agreements are not unconscionable, at least in business-to-business transactions. The Supreme Court cited three recent cases from other courts enforcing shrink-wrap agreements. It also quoted the trial judge as saying "if this case had arisen in 1985 rather than 1997, I might have a different ruling."

This trend means that software consumers need to take shrink-wrap agreements seriously, read them and understand their provisions. If the terms are not acceptable, buyers need to return the software and buy another brand or negotiate a more favorable license agreement.

Realistically, whether software companies would, through negotiation, agree to remove or raise liability limitations is questionable. If they are unwilling to do so, then software buyers need to understand the risk they have assumed and provide for it.


If you would like to receive legal reports and updates by e-mail, click here and fill out the mailing list form. If you would like to subscribe to our RSS feeds or learn more about RSS, click here.


Send This Report to a Colleague

Tools to Share, Organize, Comment on Information


©2000 ConstructionWebLinks, Inc.

More than 500 online news and legal reports on construction law, including claims, payment remedies, damages, government contracting, insurance, building codes, licensing, technology, arbitration, engineering, architecture, infrastructure

© ConstructionWebLinks, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Legal notices, and terms and conditions.

Site Search Site Map Registration About CWL ConstructionWebLinks Contact Us