Pure Economic Loss Flashcards Preview

Tort Law > Pure Economic Loss > Flashcards

Flashcards in Pure Economic Loss Deck (15):
1

Sparton Steel v Alloys

Electricity to power station was cut off. Losses caused by physical damage to metals already being smelted were recoverable. Losses caused by not being able to smelt further metal were not recoverable.

2

The Aliakmon

Cargo was negligently damaged at sea, contract had already been completed, buyer tried to sue ship owner but failed. Held that the claimant should have been better advised to the appropriate contractual structure.

3

Anns v Merton

Local authority was negligent in relation to premises, claimant who bought premises tried to claim for money for repairs. Held that a duty was owed by the local authority to subsequent purchasers, damage was classified as material physical, limitation ran from time of "imminent danger"

4

D&F Estates v Church Commissioners

It was held that there had to be more than just economic loss under Anns v Merton

5

Murphy v Brentwood

Overruled Anns - no liability for mere defects.

6

Bellefield Computer Services

A firewall was defective, held that damages to the building itself were unrecoverable but damages to separate property (contents) were recoverable.

7

Hedley Byrne v Heller

Purchaser's bank made negligent statement about creditworthiness. Held there may be liability for negligent statements which cause economic loss in tort. Test usually one of proximity and assumption of responsibility. If there's relationship akin to contract, there is duty of care.

8

Smith v Bush

Surveyors purported to disclaim responsibility but knew their survey would be relied upon, held relationship was akin to contract, knowledge of reliance and consideration were both present and the exclusion clause was invalid under UCTA. New test: (1) was damage foreseeable? (2) Is there a proximate relationship? (3) is it fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty?

9

Caparo v Dickman

Three stage test became the general test for duty of care replacing Smith v Bush. Relevant factors; (1) knowledge of nature of transaction which the claimant had in contemplation, (2) did the representor know that the information would be communicated to the claimant? (3) did the representor know that it was likely that the claimant would rely on the information? (4) was the purpose for which the claimant relied on the information one that it is connected with the interests which it is proper to expect the representor to protect?

10

Spring v Guardian Assurance

A reference was prepared negligently meaning that P did not gain employment. It was held that even though the statement wasn't relied upon by P, but by a third party, a duty of care was owed.

11

Henderson v Merret

Investors brought actions against their managing directors in respect of their losses, some contracted directly with them and others did not, but in either case a claim was possible.

12

White v Jones

Two daughters successfully sued a solicitor for failing to change their father's will on his request before his death. It was held that there was a special relationship between the solicitor and the girls, and he had assumed responsibility for them.

13

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods

Company who had negotiated a franchise with a company sued the managing directors on the basis that he had assumed personal responsibility towards them. Held - they would need to show how specific words or conduct crossed the line and made it appear that they could rely on the managing director personally.

14

CEC v Barclays Bank

Under Hedley Byrne there was no assumption of responsibility, not fair just and reasonable to impose liability under Caparo.

15

Cattle v Stockton

Contractor was delayed putting tunnel under road due to pipe having been installed negligently by the council, was subject to a penalty clause. Held: it was unrecoverable relational economic loss.