case, plaintiff stipulated that there were no formation irregularities in the contract; thus, it acknowledged that the contract was not unconscionable and that there was no inequality in bargaining position between the two parties. Plaintiff and defendants are sophisticated, professional parties who conducted business at arms’ length, and the “result” of the contract does not elicit a “profound sense of injustice.” Id. at 182, 221 S.E.2d at 504. In addition, defendants are not common carriers or providers of a public utility. The parties here are similar to “a telephone company leasing space to a tenant or an electric power company selling an electric stove[.]” Id. at 184, 221 S.E.2d at 505; see also Reed’s Jewelers, Inc. v. ADT Co., 43 N.C. App. 744, 747, 260 S.E.2d 107, 109-10 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Risk Allocation provision was
holding that even though certain corporate formalities had not been complied with in the execution of the subject contract the corporation had knowledge of the existence of the contract and treated it as a valid and binding contract and thus ratified the contract by accepting the benefits thereunder holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur holding in contract for burglar alarm system limitation of liability provision as to damages resulting from vendors own negligence was enforceable and not against public policy or unconscionable where agreement was between two private businesses and plaintiff had 20 years experience with similar provisions in similar service contracts with a competitor of the defendant recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that a limitation on liability for stolen property in a contract between a jeweler and a burglar alarm company was valid and did not invoke the public service exception where the contractual provision in question was set out in the contract in bold print and neither party contended that the contract in question was not signed by it nor does the plaintiff deny its contents