The facts, which are set forth in cross motions for summary judgment, are essentially undisputed.

We do not know whether the other courts would have dismissed the third party actions against TSL for the same reasons. It is quite likely that at least the state courts of New York would have done so. The district court for the Southern District of New York applied New York’s long-arm statute in making its determination, and it seems likely that the six New York state courts, making the same determination and applying the same law, would come to the same conclusion.

Step Saver included another complaint, entitled simply “Complaint,” in its appendix to this court. However, that complaint post-dates the district court's decision; it was not before the district court. Thus, it is not properly before us.

Much of our analysis of both claims depends on interpretation of state contract law. Although, in this diversity case, there are numerous states whose law might apply — including New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania where the customers resided and the systems were installed, and Pennsylvania, Georgia and California, where the parties to this action may have contracted — we cannot, on this limited record, determine which law applies to which actions. All of the relevant states have adopted the U.C.C., and the parties have not suggested that, on the relevant points, the U.C.C. case law differs among the possibly relevant states.

See L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 82 (2d ed. 1988) (“[T]he categorization of a case as unripe for federal adjudication cannot be reduced to an orderly, much less highly principled and predictable, process."); Shapiro, "Jurisdiction and Discretion," 60 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 543, 553 (1985) ("The doctrine of ripeness ... has a large discretionary element....”).

28 U.S.C. § 2201 states:

As Professor Borchard notes, there are some situations in which courts can make a declaration absent proof of a necessary fact. If a future event is "certain to occur, such as enforcement of an existing statute or the death of a life-tenant or the future expiration of a contract, franchise or lease,” E. Borchard, supra, at 37-38, then the legal interests may be considered adverse enough. However, the necessary fact at issue here is quite uncertain. Unlike the future events which Borchard lists, almost all of which are simply “a matter of time,” the necessary future event for Step-Saver's request (i.e., finding that the computers were defective in a manner attributable to defendants) is far from certain. The computers could have been defective when delivered to Step-Saver’s customers for any of a number of reasons, some of which would not render the defendants liable.

We decline to construe Step-Saver’s request for declaratory relief "liberally,” or to presume that Step-Saver wanted the district court to engage in the necessary factfinding. Throughout the record, Step-Saver referred to the customer suits as the basis of liability. It did not intimate, anywhere, that it wanted the court to determine the defective nature of the products. While arguably the declaratory judgment action was of limited value to Step-Saver in the absence of such factfinding, it appears that Step-Saver made a strategic decision to do no more than establish in the district court a vehicle for making the defendants account for liability imposed upon them in other jurisdictions where service could not be had on Wyse or TSL. Apparently at the heart of the strategy was the unwillingness to admit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that the products were defective while denying defect in the customer suits. Moreover, we doubt that courts are free to construe declaratory requests liberally. Although the Declaratory Judgment Act vests courts with a great deal of discretion, we do not think that Congress meant to confer on the courts the right to declare as law, something that has not even been asked for by the parties.

.The conclusivity inquiry, just discussed, goes to whether the parties' rights will be definitively decided by a declaratory judgment. In this case, we cannot answer that question affirmatively because the parties’ legal rights cannot be decided until the underlying factfinding has been done. The utility inquiry, discussed presently, goes not to whether the legal rights will be clarified, but to whether the parties’ plans of actions are likely to be affected by a declaratory judgment.

In the great,majority of contract disputes like this one, the warrantor is joined or impleaded. See R. Anderson, supra, § 2-607:66 ("Rules of civil procedure and statutes have been adopted or enacted in many jurisdictions providing that when a defendant shows that some third person, may be ... liable ... the joinder of such other person as a party or defendant may be obtained.”); A. Squillante & J. Fonseca, supra, § 22-10(2), at 283 (“Vouching in has been supplanted, in great measure by the advent of third party practice or impleader.”). However, im-pleader rules are subject to basic due process requirements, and they cannot, in and of themselves, give a court personal jurisdiction over the warrantor. See generally Restatement (Second) of Judgments §§ 57, 82 (1982).

See also G. Wallach, The Law of Sales Under the Uniform Commercial Code § 10-05[4] (1981). Professor Wallach examines third party claims under both the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and U.C.C. § 2-607(5), noting that "either approach allows the buyer to claim ... any judgment obtained by the third party." Nowhere does Wallach suggest that either the U.C.C. or the Restatement suggests that buyers have the right to join the warrantor in the original third party suit.

Although defendants maintain that the declaratory judgment suit does not contain a direct damages claim, we disagree.

In addition, if the defendants sold defective products in breach of their warranties, they are liable for "the difference ... between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted." U.C.C. § 2-714(2).

The district court’s expressed concern about "the unnecessary interference with the pending litigation in eleven state courts and one federal court," and its citation to Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), raises a possible question of abstention. Presumably, the district court was concerned about the duplication of effort resulting from parallel suits, the burden that might be imposed upon the customers if they are deposed or called as witnesses in the district court in Philadelphia, and the risk of inconsistent verdicts. The principles of Colorado River rest on considerations of " 'wise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.’ ” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817, 96 S.Ct. at 1246 (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183, 72 S.Ct. 219, 221, 96 L.Ed. 200 (1952)). However, abstention must be considered " ‘the exception not the rule,’ ” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 14, 103 S.Ct. 927, 936, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) (quoting Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 813, 96 S.Ct. at 1244). If the district court wishes to consider abstention (or a stay in lieu of dismissal on abstention grounds) it will have to develop a record and make Colorado River-oriented findings, weighing whether "principles unrelated to considerations of proper constitutional adjudication and regard for federal-state relations which govern in situations involving the contemporaneous exercise of concurrent jurisdictions ...” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 817, 96 S.Ct. at 1246, outweigh an otherwise appropriate exercise of federal jurisdiction. Colorado River of course, does not apply to the case pending in the district court in New York. Cf. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). We note the foregoing in light of the district court’s expressed concern, but we intimate no view on the subject.