The assignment is research case law, assume the hypothetical below:

Jim Blandings was tired of living in an apartment. His first thought was to build a dream home. But, afraid that many unforeseen troubles would lead to humorous results, Blandings decided instead to buy a new mass-produced tract house. The tract house, it turned out, had its own problems.

Question (1) To his dismay, Blandings discovered that his house has construction defects. Under California law, Blandings can sue in strict liability for construction defects in his tract house.

What is the earliest decision of the California Court of Appeal so holding? (Provide a quotation from the earliest decision so holding followed by a citation.)

Question (2) The defects in the house have caused damage to other parts of the house. In discussing this with his lawyer, Bill Cole, Blandings is told that the economic loss rule may affect his ability to apply strict liability against the builder.

According to the California Supreme Court in a 2000 decision, under the common law can a plaintiff recover in strict liability for defects that have not caused property damage or personal injury?

Question (3) In the house owned by Blandings, the defective windows caused damage by water intrusion to the stucco, insulation, framing, drywall, paint, wall coverings, floor coverings, baseboards, and other parts of the house. The builder of the house asserts that the product is the entire house so that the economic loss rule precludes the application of strict liability because there is no property damage other than to the product itself.

According to a 2002 decision of the California Supreme Court, does the builder's argument succeed?

Question (4) If Blandings wants to sue the builder on the basis of the builder's fraudulent representations made when Blandings purchased the house, according to the California Supreme Court would his fraud claims be barred by the economic loss rule?