Tort essay
The Law of Tort is primarily concerned with provisions of remedies to those harmed by the conduct of others. A Tort can be described as a civil wrong, compensation for which can be claimed by the party who has sustained a loss as a consequence of the committed wrong. Tort is inclusive of negligence and a claimant may succeed in an action in negligence by proving firstly that the defendant owed him a duty of care, secondly that the defendant was in breach of that duty and finally that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result. A plaintiff can claim in negligence if he suffers financial loss due to negligent mis-statement. 'Special relationship' between parties and the 'special skill' represented by the defendant together with 'Reliable reliance' are the necessary elements required by a Plaintiff for establishing a liability in a professional negligence action. Albert's trust and action can be discounted, as Barry was not qualified to provide professional advice pertaining to investment decisions. Also, the advice was imparted in a social set up and thus held little trust for serious consideration. Lastly, Albert had not specially requested for considered advice, mentioning to Barry that it would
Percy can therefore claim for the economic loss as well as for consequential losses thereon. Although, Jim could argue that he lacked the required skills to provide advice regarding claims and that she should have made use of independent advice, this maybe shunned on the grounds that he was consciously aware of the claimant's intention of adhering to his advice. The court held that the claimants could only recover for the physical damage to the melt in progress, plus loss of profit on that melt, but not for the profits they would have made while the power was off. Parties bound in a contractual relationship owe a duty to be careful while providing statements to the contracting party. The claim being made in the County court would require regular legal payments and he might also end up being responsible for the legal costs of Barry since it would be difficult to prove that the loss was only due to Barry's negligent mis-statement. Therefore, it is recommendable to pursue a legal claim in the County court for the loss Percy suffered as a result of damage to his crops and on the consequential losses but not for the pure economic losses. However, a disclaimer prevented any duty of care from arising. Since, the above is not applicable to Barry, he did not owe any duty of care to Albert. The negligent professional owed a duty of care to the identified client. Pure economic losses are usually not compensated for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the court's fear of the floodgate problem. The significant effect of the reliance element can be illustrated by MORGAN CRUCIBLE CO PLC V HILL SAMUEL BANK (1991) where the court held that defendants were liable for the claimant's losses. However, an exception to this rule is when there is sufficient proximity between the parties and one element in this maybe reliance by one on the other. LTD v HELLER AND PARTNERS LTD (HOUSE OF LORDS, 1964) applies to the given situation. Here the court held that if a professional person in the course of his business imparted advice, knowing that it was being relied upon, then he owed a duty of care to that person, to exercise reasonable care and skill, failing which, he would be liable in negligence.
Common topics in this essay:
HOUSE LORDS,
Law Tort,
PLC DICKMAN,
County Court,
MARTIN CO,
House Lords,
Equivalent Contract,
SAMUEL BANK,
Reliance Plaintiff,
Lastly Albert,
duty care,
economic loss,
owed duty care,
owed duty,
loss profit,
loss suffered,
pure economic,
court held,
negligent mis-statement,
house lords,
county court,
pure economic losses,
mis-statement voluntarily assumed,
assumed responsibility towards,
voluntarily assumed responsibility,
|
Acceptance Essays
