## Facts

- Frank Wille operated a heating and air-conditioning sales and service business in Wichita, Kansas, using two trade names and purchasing yellow-pages advertising for about 13 years.
- In February 1974, a Southwestern Bell representative solicited Wille’s listings for the July 1974 directory; Wille signed a one-page advertising contract.
- The contract twice directed attention to “terms and conditions” on the reverse side, including a limitation-of-liability clause capping damages for listing errors or omissions at the amount paid for the affected advertisement.
- After signing, Wille moved locations and changed telephone service, including canceling one number and obtaining a new business number with additional lines.
- When the July 1974 directory issued, some yellow-pages listings were omitted or incorrect.
- Wille claimed the errors caused lost profits and required substitute advertising expenditures; he sought about $9,990 for negligence and breach of contract.
- Wille was not billed for, and did not pay for, the listings that were incorrect or entirely missing.

## Issues

1. Whether a contractual clause limiting a telephone company’s liability for yellow-pages advertising errors or omissions to the cost of the advertisement is unconscionable or contrary to public policy.
2. Whether the limitation-of-liability clause barred recovery of consequential damages such as lost profits and substitute advertising costs under the circumstances presented.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Southwestern Bell.
- The court held the limitation-of-liability clause was enforceable and not unconscionable or contrary to public policy in the context of a yellow-pages advertising contract.
- The clause barred Wille’s claimed consequential damages beyond the contractually specified limit.
- Because Wille did not pay for the omitted or incorrect listings, the contractual cap effectively precluded any recovery.

## Legal Principles

- A clearly presented limitation-of-liability clause in a commercial advertising contract may cap damages for directory errors or omissions at the amount paid for the advertising.
- Unconscionability is assessed as a matter of law in light of the circumstances; disparity in bargaining power alone does not establish unconscionability absent additional unfairness such as deception or oppression.
- Liability limitations in yellow-pages advertising contracts are more likely to be enforced when the agreement concerns advertising rather than essential public-utility telephone service and when alternative advertising media are available.
- Public policy does not bar enforcement of such limitations absent proof of gross negligence, willful misconduct, or deceptive practices.

## Conclusion

The court enforced Southwestern Bell’s contractual cap on liability for yellow-pages errors and omissions, concluding that the clause was clear, commercially reasonable in an advertising context, and not invalid on unconscionability or public-policy grounds, thereby foreclosing Wille’s consequential-damages claims.


Wille v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 219 Kan. 755, 549 P.2d 903 (Kan. 1976)