(dissenting).
There are two lines of authority addressing whether to enforce contract provisions limiting a phone company’s liability for failing to provide requested yellow page advertising. In Allen v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 18 Mich.App. 632, 171 N.W.2d 689 (1969), appeal denied, 383 Mich. 804 (1970), a summary judgment for the phone company was reversed and the case was remanded for trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the provision was unreasonable and refused to enforce it. In the second appeal of Allen, the Court adhered to its earlier decision as the law of the case. Allen v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 61 Mich. App. 62, 232 N.W.2d 302 (1975).
Allen stands virtually alone, however, since the overwhelming majority enforces provisions limiting phone companies’ liability in omitting or erroneously listing an advertisement in a directory. McTighe v. New England Tel. and Tel. Co. 216 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1954); Pilot Indus. v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 495 F.Supp. 356 (D.C.S.C.1979); Robinson Ins. and Real Estate, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 366 F.Supp. 307 (W.D.Ark.1973); Vails v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 504 F.Supp. 740 (W.D.Okl.1980); Mendel v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co., 117 Ariz. 491, 573 P.2d 891 (Ariz.App.1977); University Hills Beauty Academy v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co., 38 Colo.App. 194, 554 P.2d 723 (1976); Advance Service, Inc. v. General Tel. Co. of Fla., 187 So.2d 660 (Fla. App.1966); Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. C & S Realty, 141 Ga.App. 216, 233 S.E.2d 9 (Ga.App.1977) overruled on other grounds at Georgia-Carolina Brick & Tile Company v. Brown et al., 153 Ga.App. 747, 752, 266 S.E.2d 531, 537 (1980); McClure Engineering Assocs., Inc. v. Reuben Donnelley Corp. 101 Ill.App.3d 1109, 57 Ill.Dec. 471, 428 N.E.2d 1151 (1981) affd., 95 Ill.2d 68, 69 Ill.Dec. 183, 447 N.E.2d 400 (1983); Louisville Bear Safety Service Inc. v. South Central Bell Tel. Co., 571 S.W.2d 438 (Ky.App.1978); State ex rel. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co. v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., 160 Mont. 443, 503 P.2d 526 (1972); Gas House, Inc. v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 289 N.C. 175, 221 S.E.2d 499 (1976) overruled in part, State ex. rel. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 307 N.C. 541, 299 S.E.2d 763, 766 (1983); see generally 92 A.L.R.2d 917 (1963). But see, Discount Fabric House Inc. v. Wis. Tel. Co., 117 Wis.2d 587, 345 N.W.2d 417 (Wis.1984). Moreover, a number of these cases have considered, rejected, and severely criticized the Allen case. Robinson Ins. and Real Estate, Inc., v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.,
*248supra; Mendel v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co., supra; McClure Engineering Assoc., Inc. v. Reuben Donnelley Corp., supra; State ex rel. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co. v. District Court of the Second Judicial Dist., supra; Gas House Inc. v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., supra; But see, Discount Fabric v. Wis. Tel. Co., supra. Gas House Inc. v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 221 S.E.2d at 505, enunciates compelling reasons to reject Rozeboom’s unconscionability argument:
The inequality of bargaining power between the telephone company and the businessman desiring to advertise in the yellow pages of the directory is more apparent than real. It is not different from that which exists in any other case in which a potential seller is the only supplier of the particular article or service desired. There are many other modes of advertising to which the businessman may turn if the contract offered him by the telephone company is not attractive.
We find in this record no basis for a conclusion that the application of the Limitation of Liability Clause could lead to a result so unreasonable as to shock the conscience. In the absence of most exceptional circumstances, which do not appear in this record, the insertion of a “Yellow Page” advertisement under the wrong classification heading will not produce a different result from that which would follow a complete omission of the advertisement from the directory. It would be virtually, if not completely, impossible to determine what portion of the business done by an advertiser is attributable to its use of “Yellow Page” advertising. There are many factors which enter into periodic fluctuations in the volume of business done by a seller of goods. The purpose of the Limitation of Liability Clause is to protect the telephone company from the danger of verdicts primarily speculative in amount. This is not an unreasonable objective.
I would adhere to the majority rule of law which in my opinion is sound law.I am hereby authorized to state that Justice WOLLMAN joins in this dissent.