Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Chaudry v Prabhakar |
FACTS: The claimant sued her friend, the defendant, who had made a statement made about the quality of a car which she had go on to buy. The friend's statement was inaccurate and negligently made. PRINCIPLE: A negligent misstatement can be made within a social relationship. |
|
|
D&F Estates v Church Commisioners for England |
FACTS: A construction company had sub-contracted the plastering for a building they were constructing. The sub-contractors's work was later found to be defective. The claimant sued, claiming loss of rent as one of the heads of damage. PRINCIPLE: The claimant can only claim for damage, not for everything arising from a work product that is defective. In this case, no duty of care was found. |
|
Hedley Byrne v Heller |
FACTS: The claimant asked for a credit report on a potential client. They were told by the defendant, a bank, that their client was sound. The client went into liquidation and could not pay its contract with the claimant, causing them loss. PRINCIPLE: Established the principle under which loss caused by negligent misstatement can be recoverable. It requires a special relationship between the parties, an assumption of responsibility and a reliance on the statement. |
|
|
Howard Marine and Dregging v Ogden |
FACTS: The claimant asked for capacity details when hiring barges. The defendant based its reply on the Lloyd's lists, which turned out to be wrong. PRINCIPLE: 1. If a firm is in the business of giving advice that can form the basis of a special relationship for the purposes of negligent misstatement. 2. Reliance on the advice must be reasonable. |
|
|
JBF Fasteners v Mark Bloom
|
FACTS: The claimant had purchased a company in order to acquire the expertise of its directors. They later found that the accounts had been misstated, and tried to rescind the contract. PRINCIPLE: The claimant must actually rely on the advice in order to claim for negligent misstatement. |
|
|
Junior Books v Veitchi |
FACTS: After the defendant negligently installed a floor for the claimant (as sub-contractors), the claimant claimed for costs including pure economic loss. PRINCIPLE: The duty of care extended to cover pure economic loss, as they were solely responsible for the loss. |
|
|
Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialties |
FACTS: Tanks for storing lobsters until the more profitable winter season failed. PRINCIPLE: The claimant could claim for the damage and consequential loss, but not for the pure economic loss. |
|
|
CASE: Murphy v Brentwood District Council |
FACTS: A building became unstable and had to be sold after the council failed to inspect it properly. Murphy claimed damages, but was unsuccessful, as there was only pure economic loss and no physical damage. PRINCIPLE: 1. Where an issue is evident before it has actually caused any physical damage, it will be a pure economic loss, and thus not recoverable in tort. 2. Suggested, obiter, the "complex structure" theory of recovery. |
|
Reeman v Department of Transport |
FACTS: The claimant attempted to claim in negligent misstatement after relying on a false safety certificate for a ship. PRINCIPLE: A claimant may claim for advice that is given to him, when used for the purpose for which it was given. |
|
Spartan Steel v Martin |
FACTS: An electricity cable was cut by the defendants, which shut the power to the claimant's factory. The claimant claimed for physical damage, consequential economic loss, and pure economic loss. PRINCIPLE: 1. Established the difference between actual, consequential and pure economic loss. 2. Pure economic loss is generally not recoverable. |
|
Spring v Guardian Assurance |
FACTS: The defendant provided false reference which poorly reflected on the claimant, who was applying for a new job and consequently claimed for pure economic loss. PRINCIPLE: Pure economic loss is recoverable where the references provide are untrue. |
|
Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute |
FACTS: Infected cattle could not be sold as intended. the claimant (an auctioneer) sought to recover his losses (what he would have made on the sale). PRINCIPLE: Pure economic loss was not recoverable as the claimant did not have a proprietary interest in the property. |
