by disclaiming warranties or limiting remedies. In exchange, the purchaser pays less for the product. Since a coramercial situation generally does not involve large disparities in bargaining power, we see no reason to intrude into the parties' allocation of the risk. Id. at 872-73, 106 S.Ct. 2295. As discussed in more detail below, this principle that parties must be able to confidently allocate their risks and costs in a bargaining situation underlies the necessity for the economic loss rule. > Our court of appeals first adopted the economic loss rule in Jardel Enterprises, Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d 1301 (Colo.App.1988). In Jardel, the court refused to permit a restaurant owner to bring a negli-genee claim against a subcontractor for lost profits resulting from th 1998) (<HOLDING>); Chellsen v. Pena, 857 P.2d 472, 477
holding that the economic loss rule bars negligence claim for failure to receive a particular return on cattle investment program holding that owners testimony that he lost 200200 in income was legally insufficient because it did not provide any indication of how the owner determined what his lost profits were holding that the rule bars subcontractors negligence claim because no independent duty was breached holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract holding that the rule bars negligence claim for lost profits as a result of restaurant owners inability to use drivethrough window