Economic Loss tort law

Watch this thread
sdad
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Hello everyone
I was wondering if we get Consequential economic loss or Negligent misstatement problem question do we need to use the Caparo guide ( novel case) after proving that it is Consequential economic loss or negligent misstatement.
thank you
0
reply
Pythian
Badges: 21
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Firstly, consequential loss is completely different from pure economic loss. Two different concepts.

Secondly, the law had developed a different line of jurisprudence from Donoghue v Stevenson where the "neighbour principle" couldn't work. Instead, the law focuses on the "voluntary assumption of responsibility" (Lord Reid) and a "special relationship of proximity" (Lord Devlin - akin to contract) as an adequate control for loss arising from negligent words. The major starting point here is the Hedley Byrne v Heller case.

Thirdly, Hedley Byrne was decided prior to Caparo. In 2006, Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank - House of Lords (Bingham, Hoffmann et al) confirmed that Hedley Byrne v Heller suffices in relation to negligent misstatement as opposed to the Caparo triumvirate.
0
reply
sdad
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by Pythian)
Firstly, consequential loss is completely different from pure economic loss. Two different concepts.

Secondly, the law had developed a different line of jurisprudence from Donoghue v Stevenson where the "neighbour principle" couldn't work. Instead, the law focuses on the "voluntary assumption of responsibility" (Lord Reid) and a "special relationship of proximity" (Lord Devlin - akin to contract) as an adequate control for loss arising from negligent words. The major starting point here is the Hedley Byrne v Heller case.Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank

Thirdly, Hedley Byrne was decided prior to Caparo. In 2006, Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank - House of Lords (Bingham, Hoffmann et al) confirmed that Hedley Byrne v Heller suffices in relation to negligent misstatement as opposed to the Caparo triumvirate.
Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank, did confirmed that Caparo guide could be used if assumption of responsibility test fails.
I know that consequential loss is different from pure economic loss, so does we use Caparo guide?
Also, for other special circumstance such as, psychic harm or omission can we use Caparo? Like law has different rules for each so I was wondering like in economic loss if assumption of responsibility fails we are allowed to use Caparo.
Thank you
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest

What is missing from the school curriculum?

Basic life skills (eg. cooking) (23)
22.55%
Financial skills (eg. taxes, budgeting) (49)
48.04%
First aid skills (6)
5.88%
Personal safety skills (4)
3.92%
Sign language (14)
13.73%
Expanded sexual health/relationships (4)
3.92%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (2)
1.96%

Watched Threads

View All