an additional fact question prevents dismissal of the express warranty claim due to disclaimer: namely, whether the disclaimer is inoperable as “unreasonably inconsistent” with express warranties made. To be effective, a disclaimer must be (1) clear and conspicuous and (2) not “ 'unreasonably inconsistent’ with the express warranties given.” Viking Yacht Co. v. Composites One LLC, 496 F.Supp.2d 462, 470 (D.N.J.2007) on reconsideration in part, No. 05-538, 2007 WL 2746713 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2007) and aff d sub nom. Viking Yacht Co. v. Composite One LLC, 385 Fed.Appx. 195 (3d Cir.2010). The conspicuity requirement is uncontested here. If written representations create express warranties, inconsistency with such representations may be sufficient to render the disclaimer inoperable. See id. (<HOLDING>); see also Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp., 26
holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty holding that representations in a product bulletin created an express warranty inconsistent with disclaimer contained therein which was thereby inoperable holding plaintiff was barred from seeking remedy because express warranty expired in accordance with time limits elucidated in the limited repair and replace warranty holding that courts cannot imply covenants which are inconsistent with express provisions 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