satisfies the UCC disclaimer requirements set forth at M.C.L. § 440.2816(2): [T]o exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it, the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness, the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that “There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof.” The Court is satisfied that defendant Proctor & Schwartz effectively disclaimed the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness recognized under the UCC. See U.S. Fibres, Inc. v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc., 509 F.2d 1043, 1046-47 (6th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). Citizens argues such disclaimer is not
holding that a standard form disclaimer for negligence of thirdparty tour operators which appeared on plaintiffs cruise ticket was valid as a disclaimer holding that the language in the lease agreement for computer accounting programs was an effective disclaimer of an implied warranty but for language in a statement of installation conditions which document created a genuine issue of material fact as to disclaimer holding similar language to be a valid disclaimer holding inconspicuous written disclaimer to be unenforceable absent actual knowledge of the disclaimer holding that similar language provided a sufficient general jurisdiction allegation