In Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Products, Inc. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 357, the developer filed an action against the manufacturer of defective bathroom sinks installed in the developer's mass-produced residences. (Fieldstone, supra, at p. 362.) However, the only damage alleged was to the defective sinks, which the developer replaced. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the manufacturer in part because the manufacturer could not be held strictly liable for economic damages only (i.e., damage only to the defective product). (54 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 366-367.) The developer did not allege any damage to other property. (54 Cal. App. 4th at p. 366.) The Court applied J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799 in concluding that neither Fieldstone, a homebuilder, nor a group of homeowners, shared a special relationship with the manufacturers of sinks that Fieldstone installed in the homes that would support tort liability for economic damages. The Fieldstone court reasoned: "Fieldstone's analysis fails because the evidence does not suggest the transactions in question were intended to affect Fieldstone or the homeowners 'in any way particular to them, as opposed to all potential purchasers of the equipment. The absence of this foundation precludes a finding of "special relationship" as required by J'Aire: to the extent the product was intended to affect Fieldstone or the homeowners in the same way as all retail buyers, this becomes a traditional products liability or negligence case in which economic damages are not available. ' (Ott v. Alfa-Laval Agri, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1439 at pp. 1455-1456.) We need not consider the remaining parts of the J'Aire test. 'Even if they weighed in favor of finding a duty of care, we would still conclude that no duty existed. If a duty of care to avoid economic injury existed in the circumstances of the present case, every manufacturer would become an insurer, potentially forever, against economic loss from negligent defects in a product used for its intended purpose. J'Aire neither requires nor supports such a radical departure from traditional notions of liability.' (Ott, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1455-1456.)" (Fieldstone, at pp. 368-369.) In sum, in Fieldstone Co. v. Briggs Plumbing Products, Inc. (1997) a residential developer contracted with plumbing subcontractors to install sinks in numerous housing developments, and the subcontractors purchased sinks from the manufacturers. (Fieldstone, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 362.) After the sinks began rusting and chipping, the developer paid to replace 1,900 sinks. (Ibid.) The developer then sued the manufacturers on various theories, including breach of implied warranties. The trial court granted summary judgment on this claim based on the lack of vertical privity between the developer and the manufacturers. (Id. at p. 363.) In affirming, this court rejected the developer's argument that the developer was in substance the purchaser because some of the manufacturers " 'made sales calls' " on the developer, and the " 'plumbers special ordered shipments of lavatories for use in the developer's specifically designated projects ... .' " (Id. at p. 371.) The Court explained that U.S. Roofing, Inc. v. Credit Alliance Corp. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1431 was distinguishable because in that case the "parties were in privity for purposes of implied warranty claims where there was considerable evidence they dealt directly with each other vis--vis the purchase ... ." (Id. at p. 371, fn. 12.)