Goldson v. Carver Boat Corp

In Goldson v. Carver Boat Corp., 309 N.J. Super. 384, 707 A.2d 193 (App.Div.1998), plaintiff sought recovery from the manufacturer of a boat for damages to the boat caused by the boat's defective engines, the Court said that: Where there is no substantial disparity in bargaining power, and the only damage caused by the defective product is to the product itself, contract law, and the law of warranty in particular, is best suited to set the metes and bounds of appropriate remedies. Damage to a product itself is most naturally understood as a warranty claim because the cause of action rests on the premise that the product has not met the customer's expectation. . . . In contrast, "tort damages generally compensate the plaintiff for loss and return him to the position he occupied before the injury." East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 873 n.9, 106 S. Ct. 2295, 2303 n.9, 90 L. Ed. 2d 865, 878 n.9 (1986). . . . The objective of tort law is generally to protect the public's interest in freedom from harm. Tort principles are thus suited for resolving claims involving "unanticipated physical injury." Spring Motors Distribs., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., supra, 98 N.J. at 580, 489 A.2d 660. Id. at 397-98, 707 A.2d 193.