• 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 Problem Question Answer

    It is because there is a relationship of proximity between the employer and his employees and the driver and other road users. This is sufficient in law to give rise to a duty of care.6 This concludes that Defendant 2 had a duty of care towards the other road users (the Claimant and Defendant 1 included)

  2. Duty of Care.

    the fire brigade and a building owner in respect of negligence in tackling fires. The fire brigade is not under a duty to answer a call for help and is not under a duty to take care to do so.

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

    are seen as subjective as shown in White v. St Albans City Council (1990) The Times 12 March. In this case the claimant, a trespasser, was taking a short cut across the defendants fenced off the property, when he fell in a trench and injured himself. It was held that the defendants were not liable because they had taken precautions to stop people from entering their land.

  2. 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

  1. tort law problem

    His application for a new job has been terminated 'in light of recent news' which will most likely have come from Mary's allegations. It is clear therefore that Bill has been named and people have understood the allegations to be about Bill.

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

    The bank replied that Easipower was financially sound, but with an exclusion clause stating "WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY" at the beginning of the reference letter. But Easipower went into liquidation shortly afterwards, causing great economic loss to the claimant who has relied on the reference provided by the defendant and did business with Easipower on credit.

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

    In addition, the roof of the premises collapses and the clothing is destroyed by rain coming into the premises. In order to survive, Jessica undertakes some sewing work for a clothing factory, Fast Clothing. She is to be paid for each batch of clothing that she completes, and is required to work at the factory premises.

  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