Staton Hills Winery Co., Ltd. v. Collons

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the product “did not leak, explode, or come apart” rather it failed to 5 “fulfill contract requirements” thus the defect “implicates the ‘expectation-bargain protection’ 6 7 policies of contract law and does not implicate the safety insurance policies of tort law”
• describing contract law as focused on “enforcing 9 expectations created by agreement,” and tort law as focused on “protecting people and property 10 by imposing a duty of reasonable care on others”
• where the risk was foreseeable and the parties were bargaining at arm’s length, contract policies are implicated
• “[T]ort law policies are not applicable where a 22 product’s defect is merely its failure to meet the purchaser’s expectation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).