Airbrake Systems, Inc. v. TUV Rheiland of North America, Inc., 699 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D. Conn. 2010).
In this case, the manufacturer brought suit against a testing company for breach of contract, tortuous interference of a contract fraud, negligence and professional malpractice. A service agreement between the parties contained an explicit six-month period of limitation. The six-month period of limitation was significantly shorter than the relevant statutory period of limitation of six years. The U.S. District Court held that state courts of Connecticut have found such contractual provisions valid and enforceable. The court also found that the six-month period of limitations was not per se unreasonable and the time period was more than enough time for an injured party to solicit the advice of counsel and to draft and file a complaint. The court reasoned that where the contract is made between sophisticated commercial parties with no obvious disparities and bargaining powers, the court must assume that the parties considered the existence of the provision and their risk calculated and factored into the final bargaining contract price.