Abstract
My objective in this Article is to provide some perspective on the economic loss rule, the proper statement of which has figured prominently in debates about the proposed Restatement on economic torts. Part I describes the varieties of the economic loss rule and the Article's focus on the rule's application to third-party cases. Part II summarizes the history of liability for third-party economic loss. Part III describes the conceptual underpinnings of the rule, its application in third-party cases, and its treatment in the proposed Restatement. Part IV criticizes the private ordering claim underlying the rule, particularly in light of recent changes in contract law. Part V situates the debates about the rule in the unmaking of neoclassical law and contemporary political changes. Part VI concludes with a warning about the historical significance of the adoption of elements of the rule in the Restatement.
How to Cite
48 Ariz. L. Rev. 813 (2006)
1
Views
1
Downloads