Really getting confused with economic loss here.
I get the basics:
1) Pure economic loss when not resulting from physical damage not recoverable (Spartan Steel)
2) Relational Economic Loss (when no legal ownership of property) not recoverable
3) Economic loss resulting from defective products not recoverable (Murphy)
4) HOWEVER, economic loss from negligent misstatement is recoverable (Hedley)
5) This was also extended to cases of services (Spring/Henderson)
6) HOWEVER the 'assumption of responsibility' principle weakened as Smith v Eric Bush shows it to not really be related to any notion of 'proximity' that it claimed to be/Caparo therefore stated that when a case did not fall within the Hedley principle the usual 3-stage test must be consulted/This significantly reduced the scope of Hedley principle
7) HOWEVER despite the judges limiting its scope, judges still insisted on following the Hedley principle (extended-cases) despite them not really fitting
THUS really both Hedley and Caparo as questions of policy/Although hide under guise of 'assumption' and 'proximity' really just the same question of 'policy'.
My main problem is how Hedley and Caparo fit together.
Any help would be SO greatly appreciated.
Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
Already a member?
Oops, something wasn't right
please check the following:
Not got an account?
Sign up now
© Copyright The Student Room 2016 all rights reserved
The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.
Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22
Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE