but bankruptcy, in fact, did intervene. GMI ... bought the assets out of bankruptcy subject to an order ... making the purchase free and dear of all daims____ [I]n this instance, that purchase of assets simply does not make [GMI] liable for all of Glasstream’s old customers on their various warranty claims for economic loss. ... [D]espite the claims of .negligence ... being made here, what we have is essentially a contract claim, a warranty claim based and sounding in the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code in which I believe buyers bare [sic] the risk that sellers [may be] ... near ... going out of business or going bankrupt____ In reaching this conclusion, the judge either did not consider or declined to follow Santor v. A & M Karagheusian, Inc., 44 N.J. 52, 207 A.2d 305 (1965) (<HOLDING>). Instead, he relied primarily on Spring Motors
holding that an action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the uniform commercial code is a product liability action within the meaning of the products liability act if as here the action is for injury to person or property resulting from a sale of a 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 recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law holding that no products liability claim lies in admiralty when commercial party alleges injury only to product itself resulting in purely economic loss insofar as the tort concern with safety is reduced when an injury is only to the product itself holding that a consumer can institute a products liability suit for economic loss to the product