• 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...


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.


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.


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

    Ltd16, and is actionable per se which means without proof of damage whereas slander generally takes a non-permanent form for example words or gestures and is non actionable per se17. Therefore as Mary simply stated in words the allegations, each person can commence proceedings against Mary for slander.

  2. Duty of Care.

    Best v Samuel Fox & Co. Ltd [1952] A negligent driver owes duty to the injured man himself but not to the servant of the injured man who looses his job. Inland Revenue Commissioner v Hambrook [1956] Negligent defendant owes no duty to the master of the injured man but only to the injured.

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

    This was seen in the case of Revill v Newbury 1996, it was held that the defendant was liable as it is governed by common law. This means that Mr and Mrs Fontes could still be liable even if Mr Arantes was committing a crime, so they would owe Mr Arantes a duty of care.

  2. Nuisance Problem Answer.

    With regard to the problems being experienced by is ( mention which is/are the most relevant explain each, give case examples and apply) The unreasonableness will only constitute a nuisance if it is ongoing.

  1. This essay mainly focuses on one aspect of tort law - the claim for ...

    (Cane, 1987, p.74) Further more, there was also concern that once the 'floodgates' open, liability would rest in "an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate term to an indeterminate class". (Deakin, S. et al, 2003, p.113) However, it became possible to recover financial loss aroused by negligent misstatements2 in the famous case Hedley Byrne & Co.

  2. But Parliament has made it clear that in the case of a lawful visitor, ...

    Far from a divergence of approach to the concept of duty, careful consideration of the wording of the two Acts throws up many similarities. In Tomlinson, Lord Hobhouse observed that the fundamental principles driving the two are the same (3). (1) (2004) 1 AC 4 (2) at para 68 (3)

  1. Law For Business.

    Stephen and Lesley were clearly in contract (mortgage) with the council as they signed a written contract with an additional valuation fee. The basis of a duty to take care in the circumstances in this case would be based under 'reliance' as in the Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners (1964)

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

    as it does not stem directly from personal injury or physical damage to her property[1]. The judiciary are reluctant to allow damages to be recovered for pure economic loss, as it could be considered to be too âindirectâ[2] or too âremoteâ[3], and for fear of opening the âfloodgates of litigationâ[4],

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