Duty Of Care In The Case Of G Shepherd V.
Rule: The relevant area of law …show more content…
It would be reasonable for Roland and Belle to accept G Shepherd & Co’s and David’s advice .In Shaddock v Paramatta City Council ,the High court held that the duty of care extends to the supply of information as well as advice. Therefore, G Shepherd & Co and David do owe a duty of care in relation to the statements made to Roland and Belle.
Breach of that duty of care:
An objective test is applied in assessing whether G Shepherd & Co and David has met the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. Referring to Rogers v Whitaker ,, here we examine G Shepherd & Co’s statement said ” asbestos insulation had been removed from the property in 1989” . For David ,he just accept the assessor’s certificate which indicated that upon sampling no loose fill asbestos was detected in the property without further inspection and any other skeptical asking. However, Roland and Belle have discovered particles of loose fill asbestos in the wardrobe. Even David and G Shepherd & Co are newbies, they still cannot evacuate the responsibility in Imbree v McNeilly Therefore, G Shepherd & Co was in breach of the duty of …show more content…
The contract signature also has the law power which represents that client also agree with the statement and conditions terms in the contract. Thus the plaintiff is also negligent. Besides, David appointed Basil for the asbestos inspection, he may think that he is not professional assessor. Thus, it is reasonable to accept the Basil’s advice. David could share the responsibility with Basil. Voluntary assumption of risk as suggested as Agar v Hyde : In this case, it is possible to see that the plaintiff is appreciated the relevant risk and accepted it freely and willingly because obviously everybody is self-interest and just want to maximize the personal valuation. They should not heavily rely on the agent and solicitor, it could be predicted the situation that loose fill asbestos is still remained and do not fully remove.
Remedies and Conclusion: As the negligent of G Shepherd & Co, it make the misstatement of the contract of sale which mislead David and couples to sign and purchase the property. As David’s negligence in misappropriate arranging the assessor, Basil which lead Roland and Belle finally believe and accept the contract. Because G Shepherd & Co and David satisfy all of the criteria of being sued as