Cite as: 520 U. S. 875 (1997)
Scalia, J., dissenting
the plaintiff's sole loss, the judgment of the Supreme Court was that the undesirable consequences of affording a tort remedy in addition to a contract-based recovery were sufficient to outweigh the limited interest of the plaintiff in having relief beyond that provided by warranty claims. The relevant bargain in this context is that struck by the plaintiff. It is that bargain that determines his or her economic loss and whether he or she has been injured beyond that loss." 855 F. 2d, at 1051.
There are undoubtedly other rules that can be—and have been—conceived of. One recent article describes the current state of the law regarding damage to "other property" on construction projects as follows:
"There has been a growing trend in many jurisdictions to interpret 'economic loss' broadly to include damage that formerly was considered 'other property.' Courts that follow this trend have utilized the following rationales:
"x There is no damage to 'other property' where the damage extends only to property within the confines of the bargain. . . . 'Other property' does not include damage to property if those losses are direct and consequential losses that were within the contemplation of the parties and could have been the subject of negotiations between the parties.
"x The phrase 'other property' does not include the type of property that one would reasonably expect, on a foreseeability test, to be damaged as a direct consequence of the failure of the product at issue.
"x No 'other property' has been damaged, because the allegedly defective product has been incorporated into the structure that has been damaged.
"x Losses caused by the inferior quality of the product must be considered 'economic' and therefore cannot be
891
Page: Index Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007