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

Tort Problem.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Tort Problem Introduction It is established law that recovery for pure economic loss is possible if it is caused by a careless statement. This was established in the case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd1, so that those in the business of giving skilled advice may be liable for any economic loss suffered from giving careless information. Limits on the circumstances in which a person is held to have a duty of care were laid out to prevent "floodgates" of claims. It is these qualifications which we must focus on to ascertain whether there are possible claims in negligence for both Stout and Nice. Staff and Stout Initially there must be a "special relationship" or proximity between the parties, using a "special skill" by the defendant. In this case, Staff gives specialist advice to Stout with regards to a house he is buying in his capacity as a professional surveyor. This would be regarded as fulfilling the requirement for proximity set out in Hedley Byrne, however, in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman2, further limits were placed on proximity to restrict the number of people eligible to claim. The defendant must know that the statement would be communicated to the claimant as an individual, which in this case is true for Staff and Stout, as Staff passes on the report to Stout himself. ...read more.

Middle

There are, however, some exceptions to this. If it can be proved that the agreement had a business connection, and wasn't purely social, then a duty of care may be owed. This concept protects individuals from following advice which has been given in a social context and turns out to be false. This was established in Chaudhury v Prabhaker4. In our case, there was also a business connection, as the surveyor was asked to do a specific job for a specific purpose - to provide a report on both houses so that Stout could decide which to buy. It was not simply some offhand advice being given - Staff had to physically inspect the properties and type a written report on each one. This qualifies as being a business connection, as it is going further than simply giving advice. It can therefore be seen that Stout would have a claim against Staff in negligence. If it was decided that Staff didn't act negligently, claims with regards to the purchasing of negligent property are treated as pure economic loss. The only loss which is suffered is paying too much for something. As it is a structural defect with the property, the "complex structure" theory doesn't apply. ...read more.

Conclusion

After the error has been corrected, it is not reasonable to blame their inability to sell on the report - it could be for a number of other reasons. However, one would deduce that it seems more likely that there is no proximity between the parties, as there are more persuasive factors which weigh against it than for it. Conclusion In conclusion, Stout would be most likely to have a claim in negligence on the information given, as it fulfils the requirements for proximity, reasonableness, reliance, and responsibility. Although there is a question over the context in which the information was given, it seems to be clear that although the men were friends, there was a business connection between them - Staff surveyed the house as he would if he were employed to do so, making it reasonable to expect it to be done to the same professional standard. Nice is a 3rd party, and so therefore there is no proximity between the parties, and he doesn't act on the information given to his detriment, so Staff therefore owes Nice no duty of care. Some may argue that there is sufficient proximity, although this argument is weak and unconvincing, and it would be most likely that Nice would not have a claim in negligence. ...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. tort law problem

    This can be seen through the comments made by Agnes Featherstone. Felicity has been specifically named and identified as Mary's neighbour in the claims which have been understood by others to mean Felicity. This can be seen through the reactions of residents which proves the claims made to Mary's friends,

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

    The fifth requirement of the rule is foreseeability, injury must be foreseeable. Cambridge Water Co v. Eastern Counties Leather (1993) shows this, it was held that Rylands and Fletcher could not be applied, because the defendants had not known, and could not reasonably have foreseen, that the escape would cause pollution.

  1. Nuisance Problem Answer.

    (apply to question). It would appear that falls/does not fall within the category of persons who can be sued. Anyone who causes a nuisance is strictly liable for it's creation and continuance. If the nuisance emanates from land the occupier is primarily liable, and the owner would be liable only

  2. Tort Problem Question Answer

    Even though the law does not give any guidance towards a specific age from which a child could be held liable, we know that whether or not a very young child is guilty of contributory negligence is a fact to be assessed in the circumstances of the individual case4.

  1. The law of Tort.

    Court of Appeal began to express reservations as to the judiciousness and wisdom of Anns, and the decisions that stemmed from it. In the Peabody10 case, recovery for economic loss was refused to a property developer, with the court holding that the test in Anns was not universally applicable.

  2. Duty of Care.

    Magereson v J W Roberts Ltd [1996] The Court of Appeal held that the danger associated with large quantities of asbestos dust was foreseeable to the owner of an asbestos factory in 1933 and accordingly the defendants owed a duty of care to children who played in the dust of the factory loading bay.

  1. Economic Loss Problem Question. Jessica is unable to do any sewing for several ...

    Having lost its biggest client, Jessicaâs business runs into financial difficulties. She decides to realise her shares in Total Investments, and discovers that it has been blacklisted for fraud, is no longer doing business and has had its assets frozen.

  2. Negligence Problem Question - a fire at Amber Valley School damages Mark's property.

    However, on the facts, it should have been reasonably foreseeable by ABC because they had known of the activities of the youths as the local residents had reported that. The next issue is whether ABC owes to Mark a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the school was

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