• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Consider what is meant by concurrent liability in tort and contract. Using examples from decided cases examine how such liabilities can arise, and how the courts have dealt with the issue of the interrelationship between obligati

Extracts from this document...


Consider what is meant by "concurrent liability" in tort and contract. Using examples from decided cases examine how such liabilities can arise, and how the courts have dealt with the issue of the interrelationship between obligations in these two areas. Treitel in The Law of Contract defines a contract as: an agreement giving rise to obligations which are enforced or recognised by law. The factor which distinguishes contractual from other legal obligations is that they are based on the agreement of the contracting parties. There must be an intention from all parties to enter into a binding agreement, and that this intention is usually recognized by some apparent objective indication of the existence of an agreement. One approach in contract law is a liberal laissez-fair approach, in which anything can be used in assessing the existence of an agreement. However, there are exceptions to these rules. In the case of Tanner v Tanner1 - ' landlord and tenant- the general law- relationship of landlord and tenant- leases distinguished from licences to occupy land- distinction between licence and lease- particular instances- occupation of premises- or particular purpose- accommodation for mistress and children.' The court found that the defendant had given good consideration for the licence, it was not revocable at will, and the plaintiff could have been restrained by injunction from breaking it. The possession order made by the judge was wrong and reversed. The court did what was just and equitable compensating the defendant for the loss of the licence. In the case of Upton-on-Severn Rural District Council v Powell2- contract-implied promise-request to police to send fire brigade-brigade sent-premises situate in area of another fire brigade-liability of owner of premises. ...read more.


In the case of Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd12, Lord Scarman giving the opinion of the Privy Council, said " Their Lordship do not believe that there is anything to the advantage of the law's development in searching for liability I tort where the parties are in a contractual relationships...their Lordships believe it to be correct in principle and necessary for the avoidance of confusion in the law to adhere to the contractual analysis: on principle because it is a relationship in which the parties have, subject to a few exceptions, the right to determine their obligations to each other, and for the avoidance of confusion because different consequences do follow according to whether liability arise in contract or tort, e.g., in the limitation of action". In Tai Hing, the plaintiff was seeking to establish liability in tort which went further than the liability established by the contract between the parties. The case does not deal with the position between professional and client and is probably best interpreted as meaning that liability in tort cannot be imposed which contradicts the express terms of the contract. The case does not prevent a plaintiff from taking advantage of a tortuous duty which is the same as a contractual duty in order to use advantageous rules such as limitation periods. In Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd, 13the House of Lords held that sub-agents acting on behalf on indirect Lloyd's names owed a duty of care in negligence to the names, even though they were not in a contractual relationship with the names. ...read more.


who was the assured, PNB or Esal? (2) Whether PNB had a contractual or tortious relationship with B and D and/or the two brokerage firms? Four policies of insurance were at issue; two on FE Wright slips and the third and fourth on Fielding slips. The first two policies referred to the assured as "Punjab National Bank a/c Esal (Commodities) Ltd". The court held that (1) PNB was the assured party despite the ambiguous nature of the first two policies. The argument that the court should refer to the slips which evidenced the contracts was rejected. The intention of the parties made it clear that PNB was the assured. (2) It was established law that an insurance broker owed a duty of care to his client, Vesta v Butcher [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 19 and subsequent cases. Thus, B and D as individuals owed PNB duties in tort and were personally liable for any carelessness in effecting the four policies. B and D's employers owed a corresponding duty in tort. D and B were not liable to PNB in contract; the contracts were between PNB and FE Wright and subsequently PNB and Fielding. That B and D's contracts with FE Wright had been terminated did not affect the contractual relationship between FE Wright and PNB because Wright failed to inform PNB of the change in B and D's status. Conclusion I think that it would be a fair and reasonable to say that over the past forty years the decisions reached at court have profoundly changed in tort, contract and concurrent liability. There are many possible reasons why this has happened. One possible reasons it that, you can say the norms and values of society has changed, therefore reflecting changes on the economic structure and infrastructure. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Tort Assignment.

    5 star(s)

    1998, under which the courts have gained a power to grant damages as a remedy for the breach of a Convention right by a public authority.' 35 Section 8 (1) of the HRA 1998 'confers apparently wide powers upon the court to grant remedies for a breach of section 6 (1)

  2. concurrent liability(TM) in tort and contract.

    However not all concurrent liability principles will run in the claimant's favour. If the claimant is suing in negligence, they may be liable to have their damages reduced, as the defendant has the opportunity of raising the defence of contributory negligence by the claimant.

  1. Duty of Care.

    Galoo Ltd (in liq) v Bright Grahame Murray (a firm) [1995] The court of appeal said: Mere foreseeability that a potential bidder may rely on the audited accounts does not impose on the auditor a duty of care to the bidder, but if the auditor is expressly made aware that

  2. Vicarious Liability.

    The employees were instructed to deliver some wine on the return journey one of the employees persuaded the other, since it was by then after hours, to set off in a different direction to visit some relatives. On the way there, the plaintiff was injured by the employee's negligent driving.

  1. To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove three things

    Jerry has had no physical damage to his land so locality is important. Jerry could use the case of Sturges v. Bridgman (1879) to his advantage. In this case the defendant had used industrial pestles and mortars for twenty years.

  2. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002].

    Lord Hoffmann, however, whilst supporting the view that Wilsher falls outside of the scope of the principle, expressly rejected a "single noxious agent" limit as unprincipled (para 72). Instead he reiterated his view that "the concepts of fairness, justice and reasonableness underlie the rules which state the causal requirements of liability for a particular form of conduct" (para 56)

  1. To what difficulties had the use of a 'but-for' test of factual causation in ...

    The but-for test here, though its application is not doubted, lacks a certain dimension. It simply stops at asking 'would the damage have occurred but for the defendant's negligence'.

  2. Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle especially when analyzing two specific cases. They ...

    Courts argued about how serious the risk of loss must appear at the time of contract in order to be considered foreseeable.25 Cases presented above are evidences of existing differences between contract and tort in remoteness of damage. The most important distinction in my point of view is that a

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work