Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
37 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Spartan Steel and AlloysLtd v Martin |
Damage to furnance and loss of steel being worked on at the time recoverable. Inability to use the furnace and make future money was pure economic. |
|
Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd v Martin |
Lord Denning MR's justifications for limiting pure economic loss. Floodgates, Protestant work ethic, liability denied in statute, loss should lie where it falls, blackouts a common hazard so less deserving, burden should fall on the whole community |
|
Simaan v Pilkington |
Chain of contracts, sub-contracted to defendant to provide glass, which was defective. No duty of care, not just, fair, and reasonable. Bingham LJ wondered why there was no contractual claim up the chain |
|
The Nicholas H |
Claimant tried to sue ship classification society when ship sank, no duty of care. House of Lords: could have sued in contract, but damages were restricted to 10%. Not just, fair, and reasonable to disturb contractual allocation |
|
Islington Borough Council vUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Trust |
NHS sued hospital for disabling woman, not foreseeable, proximate, or just, fair, and reasonable under Caparo v Dickman |
|
The Aliakmon |
The defendant damaged a third party's goods, who had already contracted to sell them to the claimant. Risk, but not title, had passed to the claimant, giving them not direct cause of action |
|
The Aliakmon |
A duty of care would breach privity. One cannot sue for damage to another's property. The claimant should have assigned rights of action |
|
West Bromwich Albion vEl-Safty |
Club claimed on behalf of their 'asset' footballer, should have insured him, no claim |
|
Anns v Merton |
Lord Wilberforce took the damage to be physical, but later Lord Denning and Murphy v Brentwood took it to be pure economic. Lord Browne-Wilkinson suggested it might be physical damage waiting to happen |
|
Murphy v Brentwood DistrictCouncil |
Idea of preventative compensation rejected |
|
Murphy v Brentwood District Council |
Lord Bridge: known damage, either repair or sell, either way pure economic. Builder is liable in tort for damage caused by negligently-built building unless defect is apparent before damage caused. Exception if damages third parties |
|
Murphy v Brentwood District Council |
Lord Keith: liability a matter for Parliament, and the Defective Premises Act allows recovery in other areas |
|
Murphy v Brentwood District Council |
Lord Jauncey (obiter): no complex structure here, but the theory might apply if one component of the structure was built by a contractor which damaged the rest |
|
Murphy v Brentwood District Council |
Junior Books v Veitchi Corpexplained as part of Hedley Byrne v Heller & Co assumption of responsibility |
|
Junior Books v Veitchi Corp |
High water mark of Anns v Merton, claimant sued sub-contractor for defective floor |
|
Junior Books v Veitchi Corp |
Lord Brandon dissented: contractual obligations not actionable in tort Second limb of Anns v Merton not met - no physical danger, no desire to create a contract |
|
Tort and contract strong |
o Lord Roskill, Junior Books v Veitichi, not a question of a 'capricious judicial determination' which side of the line
|
|
Reaction to Junior Books |
D & F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners
on 'unique facts', preferred Lord Brandon's dissent No duty of care for builders Major part of retreat from Anns v Merton Noted, did not comment, on complex structure
|
|
Complex structure |
Aswan Engineering v Lupdine
Question of compound in melting containers was all part of same product Court did not have to decide: sale of goods act |
|
Theory of |
Building claims Todd; must promount accountability NZ courts have not been flooded Must not undermine contract |
|
Father case on economic loss |
Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners Assumption of responsibility, reliance Misleading banker's letter Exclusion of liability |
|
First speech in Hedley Byrne |
Lord Devlin: voluntary assumption of responsibility |
|
Second speech in Hedley Byrne |
Lord Morris: if someone with a special skill undertakes and someone else relies, duty |
|
Third speech in HB |
Lord Reid: could have done nothing, but they did, and must accept responsibility |
|
Successor to HB |
Henderson v Merrett Investors sued managers of syndicates Assumption of responsibility Lord Goff: HB extended from provision of information into performance of services Goff: nothing more akin to contract than contract Unless inconsistent with contract |
|
Reaction to Henderson |
· LordGoff admitted his approach may be called ‘untidy’.o SteveHedley calls this a considerable understatement.§ Itblurs the lines between contract and tort.§ It isnow impossible to say if a contract between the parties contains all theirrights, or just some of them |
|
Rogue case |
Chaudry v Prabhakar Friend giving advice for car was sued D lawyer's conceded duty |
|
HB and social |
Howard Marine v Odgen Lord Denning MR: HB applies to businessmen inj course of business, excludes casual conversations |
|
Reliance and assumption |
McKendrickhas argued that they are part of the same test But provides evidence and causation Lord Nolan, White v Jones, driving responsibility, almost all tort relies on reliance AsLord Mustill put it in White v Jones,this ‘consummates’ the relationship |
|
Building society surveyor |
Smith v Eric S Bush Relied on surveyor and house collapsed Problem: employee has never met purchaser or assumed responsibility LordGriffiths said: ‘I do not think that voluntary assumption of responsibility is ahelpful or realistic test for liability’ Question of circumstances when the law deems assumption Surveyor would have known purchaser would rely Templeman: sufficiently 'akin to contract' |
|
Case looking at assumption |
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Lord Steyn: had to be voluntary, reciprocity Steyn: coherence would give way to practical justice Steyn; tort, as general law, must fill gaps of contract |
|
Personal injury and Hedley Byrne |
Clayton v Woodman & Son (Builders) Ltd, a careless misstatement by an architectcaused personal injury – not pure economic loss. Therewould have been no liability for pure economic loss in this instance. Butthere was found to be some for personal injury Salmon J accepted peculiarity that minor personal injury would be compensated, not ruinous economic loss |
|
Hedley Byrne duty rejected |
Caparo v Dickman Accounts intended for general circulation No proximity or reciprocity Not akin to contract Lord Bridge: need pragmatic, distinct situations, not general principles Weir: caveat praedator is a sound and moral rule |
|
Lords considers all the tests |
• Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank
Lords: Caparo and assumption of responsibility could be concurrent Bingham: assumption of responsiblity sufficient but not necessary Incrementalism not of much use Hoffmann: assumption of R is legal, though policy and fairness will enter in • Lord Walker described the Caparo test as ‘a set of fairly blunt tools’ |
|
Reference case |
Spring v Guardian Assurance |
|
Last HB case |
White v Jones Negligent solicitor Goff: noted no reliance, proximity, assumption of responsibility, loss, or contract Assumption of R to client should extend to daughters 'practical justice' required gap to be filled |
|
Dissent in White v Joes |
Lord Mustill Issue is privity of contract Tort is not the solution HB has a duty of care arising from a relationship and mutuality - neither here |