Opinion ID: 1463027
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The complained-of defect

Text: The plaintiffs assert that because the contracts at issue contain no specifications whatsoever with regard to the dioxin, the government exercised no discretionary authority over that which is the subject of their state tort litigations, as a successful defense based on Boyle requires. Their argument misconceives the nature of what the contracts in question were about and defines the alleged defective design too narrowly. The contracts at issue provided for the defendants to supply Agent Orange. The Agent Orange was allegedly defective because it contained excessive trace amounts of dioxin, which were present as a result of the manufacture of a specified Agent Orange component, 2, 4, 5-T. The dioxin while a defect of 2, 4, 5Twas not itself defective, nor did it exist within Agent Orange apart from the 2, 4, 5-T therein. [13] It was therefore the 2, 4, 5-T that was alleged to be defective, not the dioxin.