article is no longer manufactured or is not available, we will pay the cost of a new article similar to that damaged or destroyed and which is of comparable quality and usefulness.” See policy at replacement cost settlement on personal property endorsement. 2 . The policy states “[w]e will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is completed....” See policy at replacement cost settlement on personal property endorsement. 3 . This court notes that Gilderman’s summary of the Ferguson holding is inaccurate when read against the actual language of Ferguson, quoted herein. 4 . See also, Kastendiek v. Millers Mutual Insurance Co., 946 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997); Brachter v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 961 P.2d 828, 831 (Okla. 1998) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The provision does favor defendant
holding that  672316 and  672719 stand for the principle that parties to a contract may properly limit the remedies for a breachofwarranty to repair and replacement when such limitations are reasonable but noting that the limitation is not valid when the limitation causes the product to fail of its essential purpose holding limitation of liability provision limiting damages to replacement or correction of defective material andor installation in service contract for improvements to plaintiffs residence was valid and enforceable citing restatement of contracts  339 cmt g other citations omitted  holding replacement cost provisions making payment of replacement cost dependant upon actual repair or replacement are unambiguous holding that where log home construction kit contained defects that could not be repaired contractual provision limiting damages to cost of repair failed of its essential purpose and therefore the limitation on liability was not enforceable holding that written warranty may limit a remedy to repair or replacement of parts so long as limitation is clearly expressed