essential purposes. Missouri law limits the rights of parties to contractually limit available remedies “[w]here circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose.” Mo.Rev.Stat. § 400.2-719(2). If Mid-West had accepted AM’s offer to replace the Eagle press, and the replacement press had the same deficiencies that Mid-West complains of in the original press, this position would have validity/ However, we will never know whether the replacement press offered by AM would have complied with the warranties made. Mid-West’s refusal to accept AM’s offer to replace the press precludes Mid-West from recovering on this theory. Cf., e.g., Transport Corp. of America, Inc. v. International Bus. Machs., Inc., 30 F.3d 953, 959 (8th Cir.1994) (applying Minnesota law) (<HOLDING>). The Court has carefully considered Mid-West’s
holding that ricos nationwide service of process provision did not authorize service outside the united states holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service holding that remedy of repair and service did not fail of its essential purpose when seller provided warranty service on the product and accomplished repair holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service