Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)

Citation: Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)
Parent Document: Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2011-02-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489923/treetop-at-stratton-condo-assn-... ↗

Full Text

1,509 chars

The Association further argues that, even if this Court were to find that the damages
alleged fall under the category of economic losses, the economic loss rule is nevertheless
inapplicable here since there was no actual contract between the Association and either
Defendant Bruno or DEW. The Association contends that the principles underlying the
economic loss rule militate towards requiring that contractual privity be present to justify the
rule’s application. To support this proposition, Plaintiff cites to a recent decision by the Arizona
Supreme Court in which the court reasoned that since the principal functions of the economic
loss rule are to encourage private ordering of economic relationships and to uphold the
expectations of the parties by limiting a plaintiff to contractual remedies for loss of the benefit of
the bargain, the rule and the concerns underlying it are not implicated when the plaintiff lacks
privity and cannot otherwise pursue contractual remedies. Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd.
P’ship. v. Design Alliance, Inc., 223 P.3d 664 (Ariz. 2010). The Association asserts that the
Vermont Supreme Court has so far applied the economic loss doctrine only where a contract
between the parties allocated liability, and not in a matter such as the instant one where no
contract existed between Plaintiff and Defendants. The Association urges this Court to adopt the
Arizona’s court’s reasoning. However, the holding in Flagstaff does not represent the state of
the law in Vermont.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text