City Express, Inc. v. Express Partners

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff may not recover purely economic losses against architect for professional negligence where plaintiff contracted with architect
• noting that economic damages are limited to contractual x-emedies in eases where a party is in px-ivity of contx-aet with a design professional
• holding that “in the context of construction litigation regarding the alleged negligence of design professionals, a tort action for negligent misrepresentation alleging damages based purely on economic loss is not available to a party in privity of contract with a design professional”
• applying the economic loss doctrine to preclude negligence claims against design professionals based in part on the policy of promoting certainty and predictability in allocating risk so that future business activity is not impeded
• “In general, parties may contract as they wish, and courts will enforce their agreements without passing on their substance[.]”
• “In the context of construction litigation, where a party is in privity of contract with a design professional, economic loss damages are limited to contractual remedies, and a negligence action may not be maintained.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).