care or skill____’” Id. (citations omitted). The Dentco Investment Co., Inc. case, although more closely resembling the facts in this dispute, is clearly distinguishable. In this case, there is no evidence that Parametric contracted with NMP to design a computer system capable of meeting NMP’s needs. The dispute involves a sales contract, and any system design was left specifically to NMP’s discretion. Whether Oklahoma courts would apply the economic loss rule to this dispute or not, NMP cannot pursue a gross negligence claim against Parametric because there is no duty imposed on Parametric outside the scope of the Licensing Agreement and the warranties contained therein. Compare, Walter Raczynski Prod. Design v. International Business Machines Corp., 1994 WL 247130, *2 (N.D.Ill.1994) (<HOLDING>); Hoke, Inc. v. Cullinet Software, Inc., 1992
holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient holding that defendant appraisers could be liable for negligent misrepresentation under the information provider exception to the moorman doctrine holding that a provider of software and hardware was not an information provider and thus could not be charged with negligent misrepresentation holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim brought by an independent third party health care provider was not preempted by erisa holding that a malpractice claim against a treating medical provider at an hmo was not preempted