is said to be in contract alone.” Neibarger v. Universal Coops., Inc., 439 Mich. 512, 486 N.W.2d 612, 615 (Mich.1992). This is because parties to a commercial transaction are capable of allocating the risks of economic damages in their agreement. Id. at 616. Contract law should thus not be allowed to “drown in a sea of tort.” Huron Tool and Eng’g Co. v. Precision Consulting Servs., Inc., 209 Mich.App. 365, 532 N.W.2d 541, 546 (1995); see also Miller v. United States Steel Corp., 902 F.2d 573, 574 (7th Cir.1990) (“[T]ort law is a superfluous and inapt tool for resolving purely commercial disputes.”). Because Irwin seeks recovery for economic loss only, its negligent-misrepresentation claim cannot survive. See Bailey Farms Inc. v. NOR-AM Chem. Co., 27 F.3d 188, 191-92 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Nor does Irwin make any arguments in support
holding that michigans economicloss doctrine bars recovery through the tort of negligent misrepresentation for economic loss caused by a product purchased for commercial purposes holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract