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.