• 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. Nuisance Problem Answer.

    that no right is being interfered with, concealed hidden unobservable defects in property and acts of a third party. It would appear that could be possible defences here (case, apply). A defendant will be unable to defend themselves by claiming their actions are for public benefit, that the plaintiff came

  2. Tort Problem Question Answer

    Driving above the speed limit is an offence as concluded by Lord Hope, ...a duty is owed to other road users by the driver of a vehicle which causes an accident. If commonplace situations of that kind had to be analysed, the conclusion would be that the duty is owed not simply because loss, injury or damage is reasonably foreseeable.

  1. Duty of Care.

    The claimant either has to demonstrate that the statute gives rise to an action for breach of statutory duty or must show that the circumstances are such as to raise a duty of care at common law. Anns v Merton Borough Council [1978] East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent

  2. 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.

  1. tort law problem

    With regards to Bill, Mary has alleged that he was dismissed from his former employment for embezzling the company's pension fund and served 18 months in prison for this. These allegations, which were printed in the local newspaper, are untrue and have damaged Bill's reputation.

  2. The law of Tort.

    What this suggested was that recovery could be extended to other areas of economic loss if the same degree of proximity could be identified. Such optimism, however, as far as the United Kingdom was concerned, was far too premature. Shortly after Junior Books, the House of Lords/Privy Council and the

  1. 'The concept of 'duty of care' in Negligence-An independant tort'

    the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise." The appellate courts began applying this test but the House of Lords then began retreating from the implications of the Wilberforce test.

  2. Provide reasoned arguments for why you agree or disagree with the above statement, illustrating ...

    * Usurpation of Parliament - Parliament give certain powers to public bodies and as long as the body is not acting ultra vires, then it is not for the court to enquire into their decisions. In the case of Hill the police were sued in negligence by the family of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper.

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