Skip to main content
 

15 USC § 6608 - Duty to mitigate

USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version.

Current through Pub. L. 113-99. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) In general
Damages awarded in any Y2K action shall exclude compensation for damages the plaintiff could reasonably have avoided in light of any disclosure or other information of which the plaintiff was, or reasonably should have been, aware, including information made available by the defendant to purchasers or users of the defendant’s product or services concerning means of remedying or avoiding the Y2K failure involved in the action.
(b) Preservation of existing law
The duty imposed by this section is in addition to any duty to mitigate imposed by State law.
(c) Exception for intentional fraud
Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to damages suffered by reason of the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance upon an affirmative material misrepresentation by the defendant, made by the defendant with actual knowledge of its falsity, concerning the potential for Y2K failure of the device or system used or sold by the defendant that experienced the Y2K failure alleged to have caused the plaintiff’s harm.

(a) In general
Damages awarded in any Y2K action shall exclude compensation for damages the plaintiff could reasonably have avoided in light of any disclosure or other information of which the plaintiff was, or reasonably should have been, aware, including information made available by the defendant to purchasers or users of the defendant’s product or services concerning means of remedying or avoiding the Y2K failure involved in the action.
(b) Preservation of existing law
The duty imposed by this section is in addition to any duty to mitigate imposed by State law.
(c) Exception for intentional fraud
Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to damages suffered by reason of the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance upon an affirmative material misrepresentation by the defendant, made by the defendant with actual knowledge of its falsity, concerning the potential for Y2K failure of the device or system used or sold by the defendant that experienced the Y2K failure alleged to have caused the plaintiff’s harm.

Source

(Pub. L. 106–37, § 9,July 20, 1999, 113 Stat. 198.)

The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.

The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Friday, May 3, 2013

An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.

15 USCDescription of ChangeSession YearPublic LawStatutes at Large
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.