English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania should adopt the economic loss doctrine to create a clear rule for the distinction between contract and tort claims, specifically in cases of products liability. This distinction is crucial when a purchased product malfunctions, causing damage not only to itself but also to people or other property. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has not yet reviewed a case that would clearly create a rule in the Commonwealth for distinguishing between tort and contract claims in the sale of goods. The Third Circuit has predicted that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would accept the economic loss rule as adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States. However, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has predicted that the same court will accept the “gist of the action” doctrine. To further complicate this 2

THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE: A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA