About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/alitorts9927 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR ECONOMIC HARM Generally Ariz.App.2023. Cit. generally in ftn. Developer filed a negligent-misrepresentation claim against city, alleging that, after it purchased property from a third party based on city's representations that there were no land-use stipulations on the property, city informed it of stipulations that rendered the property undevelopable as planned and unsalable for like development. The trial court granted city's motion to dismiss, finding that the public duty to supply information extended only to factual information and not the application of municipal ordinances to a particular piece of property. This court vacated and remanded, holding that city was potentially liable under Restatement Second of Torts § 552, because developer only requested information regarding whether any land-use stipulations existed, not legal advice on addressing any such stipulations. The court declined to address whether Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm displaced Restatement Second of Torts § 552, noting that the parties did not raise that issue, which had not yet been resolved by the Arizona Supreme Court. Hammer Homes, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 541 P.3d 597, 600. CHAPTER 1. UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ECONOMIC LOSS § 1. Liability for the Unintentional Infliction of Economic Loss: General Principles Tex.App.2023. Com. (c) quot. in sup. (quoting com. (c) to § 1 of T.D. No. 1, 2012, which is now § 1 of the Official Text). Retail electric provider filed a claim for breach of contract against commercial property owner, alleging that defendant failed to pay the full amount plaintiff billed for electricity during a winter storm, which was based on the wholesale price of electricity set by the entity that operated the state's power grid. Th trial court conducted a non-jury trial and concluded that the parties' unambiguous contracts required plaintiff to pay prices for electricity that included the rates set by the entity. This court affirmed, holding that the contracts allocated the risk of price volatility to plaintiff. The court cited Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 1, Comment c, in explaining that it would not rewrite the parties' contracts to reverse that allocation, because contracts that settled responsibility COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.