Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc. Case Brief

Alaska Supreme Court1976Docket #2515077
548 P.2d 279 19 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1 1976 Alas. LEXIS 377 Torts Contracts Civil Procedure

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A buyer of a defective mobile home sued the remote manufacturer for economic damages. The court rejected a strict tort liability claim but permitted a breach of implied warranty claim, eliminating the requirement of a direct contractual relationship (privity).

Legal Significance: This case establishes the economic loss doctrine, limiting strict tort liability to cases involving personal injury or property damage, while simultaneously abolishing the vertical privity requirement for UCC implied warranty claims involving direct economic loss.

Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Joseph and Nikki Morrow purchased a new mobile home from a local retailer, Golden Heart Mobile Homes. A plaque identified the manufacturer as New Moon Homes, Inc., an Oregon corporation. Immediately after purchase, the Morrows discovered numerous substantial defects, including a faulty furnace, leaking roof and bathtub, cracked windows, and electrical system shorts. The defects rendered the home unfit for habitation but did not cause personal injury or damage to other property; the loss was purely economic, representing the diminished value of the mobile home itself. The retailer, Golden Heart, provided minimal assistance before going out of business. The Morrows notified New Moon of the defects, but the manufacturer did not respond. The Morrows sued both the retailer and New Moon, alleging breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The trial court entered a default judgment against the defunct retailer but dismissed the claim against New Moon, finding no basis for liability due to a lack of privity of contract between the Morrows and the manufacturer.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Can a remote purchaser recover from a manufacturer for direct economic loss caused by a defective product under theories of strict liability in tort or breach of implied warranty, despite the absence of privity of contract?

Reversed and remanded. The court held that the Morrows could not proceed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui offic

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Can a remote purchaser recover from a manufacturer for direct economic loss caused by a defective product under theories of strict liability in tort or breach of implied warranty, despite the absence of privity of contract?

Conclusion

This decision establishes the economic loss doctrine in Alaska, confining tort recovery Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, qu

Legal Rule

Strict liability in tort does not extend to a consumer who suffers Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla par

Legal Analysis

The court bifurcated its analysis between tort and contract remedies. First, it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A consumer cannot recover from a manufacturer under a theory of
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+