supplied materials to the builder pursuant to purchase orders, entirely consensual transactions for which one would expect the law of contracts to be the exclusive umpire. As in Sensenbremer, die plaintiffs claim the contractual “package” was defective because: one or more of its component parts was sufficiently substandard as to cause damage to other parts. The effect of the failure of the substandard parts to meet the bargained-for level of quality was to cause a diminution in the value of the whole, measured by the cost of repair. This is a purely economic loss, for which the law of contracts provides the sole remedy. Sensenbrenner, 236 Va. at 425, 374 S.E.2d at 58; see also Directors of the Bay Point Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. RML Corp., 52 Va. Cir. 432, 436 (Norfolk 2000) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the Court sustains the
holding that stare decisis is not applicable unless the issue was squarely addressed in a prior decision holding that the case was squarely controlled by harpinder singh  holding that stare decisis does not apply unless the question at issue was squarely addressed in prior decisions holding in sensenbremer squarely on point in eifs case holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal