of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Code). After oral argument, the motion judge granted GMI’s motion, holding that plaintiffs’ only remedy was for breach of warranty under the UCC, and that plaintiffs’ products liability and UCC warranty claims were barred by § 363. The motion judge dismissed plaintiffs’ products liability and negligence claims, stating: I conclude that successor liability under the Ramirez doctrine ... does not apply to consumer buyers suing for economic loss only to a product which they have purchased____ Alloway ... cannot reach GMI on the facts here____ [T]he UCC clearly governs this relationship____ [B]ut for the bankruptcy of Glasstream, Alloway could have reached Glasstream and its Century Boat division . Ford Motor Co., 98 N.J. 555, 489 A.2d 660 (1985) (<HOLDING>), and D’Angelo v. Miller Yacht Sales, 261
holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective holding that a consumer can institute a products liability suit for economic loss to the product holding that a commercial buyer of defective goods cannot maintain a strict liability or negligence suit for economic loss to the product as the remedy is a breach of warranty suit under the ucc