MAKOTO USA, INC. v. Russell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the economic loss rule barred a claim under Colorado's stolen property statute as there was no indication that the stolen property statute was intended to expand contractual remedies
• noting that “another division of this court recently rejected a similar contention that ‘a claim for fraud in the performance of a contract necessarily is based on a duty independent of the contract’ ”
• holding that civil theft claim was not separate from breach of contract claim because: (1) the plaintiffs could not have proven civil theft without first proving breach of contract; (2) the contractual warranty provision provided a linkage between the contract and theft claims; and (3
• noting that to show that an independent duty of care exists under tort law, two conditions must be satisfied: (1) the duty must arise from a source other than the relevant contract, and (2) that duty must not be a duty also imposed by the contract
• comparison of the plaintiff's contract and tort claims \makes clear that the latter is dependent on the former\
• “[independence is not shown simply because a duty also exists outside the contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).