Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Case Notes
Economic Loss Doctrine
The economic loss doctrine barred the claims for damages to other property in an action alleging various defective product and warranty claims. Albers v. Deere & Company, Case No. 1:08-cv-040, D.ND., Sept. 24, 2008.
The buyer purchased a combine and a combine header from the seller. No warranties were provided because the equipment was used. After the combine ignited and was completely destroyed, the buyer sued the seller under various tort remedies. The seller argued that the economic loss doctrine barred the claims. The court reviewed the twists and turns of the economic loss doctrine and noted that the North Dakota Supreme Court has not addressed the specific issue in this case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, however, had predicted that the North Dakota Supreme Court would apply a foreseeability approach, and the court was bound to follow that ruling. Under that approach, the court concluded that the damage to the header and the loss of the combine's gasoline were clearly foreseeable in the event of a loss such as occurred in this case and something that could have been addressed at the time of the combine's purchase. Consequently, the buyer's tort claims had to be dismissed for this reason. The court went on to find that, even under a more liberal test for permitting component-to-component damage, the facts of this case would not support allowing tort recovery. The court granted the seller's motion for summary judgment.
Economic Loss Doctrine
The economic loss doctrine barred the claims for damages to other property in an action alleging various defective product and warranty claims. Albers v.
The buyer purchased a combine and a combine header from the seller. No warranties were provided because the equipment was used. After the combine ignited and was completely destroyed, the buyer sued the seller under various tort remedies. The seller argued that the economic loss doctrine barred the claims. The court reviewed the twists and turns of the economic loss doctrine and noted that the North Dakota Supreme Court has not addressed the specific issue in this case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, however, had predicted that the North Dakota Supreme Court would apply a foreseeability approach, and the court was bound to follow that ruling. Under that approach, the court concluded that the damage to the header and the loss of the combine's gasoline were clearly foreseeable in the event of a loss such as occurred in this case and something that could have been addressed at the time of the combine's purchase. Consequently, the buyer's tort claims had to be dismissed for this reason. The court went on to find that, even under a more liberal test for permitting component-to-component damage, the facts of this case would not support allowing tort recovery. The court granted the seller's motion for summary judgment.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.