Economic Loss (Derry V Peek (Candler V Crane,Christmas & Co (Hedley…
Derry V Peek
Candler V Crane,Christmas & Co
Hedley Byrne V Heller & Partners Exception to the exclusionary rule
Words can be broadcast with or without the consent of foresight of the speaker or writer. It would be one thing to say that the speaker owes a duty to a limited classbut it would be going too far to say that he owes a duty to every ultimate 'consumer' who may rely on those words to thier detriment.
There must be something more than a mere misstatement
I can see no stopping short of those relationships where it is plain that the party seeking infomration or advise was trusting the other to excercise such degree of care as the circumstances required and where the other gave the information where he knew or ought to have known that it would be relied upon
Lord Reid - A reasonable man, knowoing that he was being trusted or that his judgement and skill were being relied on would have three courses open to him. He could decline to give the advise or information sought, or he could give an answer with a clear qualification that he accepted no responsibility for it, or he could answer without such qualification. If he chooses the last course he must I think be held to have accepted some responsibility for his answer .
the categoreis of special relationships which may give rise to a duty for words inlude those which are equivalent to a contract. That is where for the absence of consideration there would be a contract. Where there is an express undertaking, an express warranty as opposed to a mere representation there can be little difficulty. The difficulty arises where the undertaking is to be implied. In such cases it may be important to consider whether the adviser is getting his reward in some indirect form.
Such a relationship may be general or particular. Examples include those of solicitor and client or banker and customer. there may be others yet to be established.
Sutradhar V National Environment Research Council (2006)
Mutual Life & Citizens Assurance Co V Evatt (1971) Lord Reid and Morris dissenting. It was held that no duty was owed by information provided by an assurance company with regards to one of its subsidiaries resulting in financial loss because D was not in the business of providing advise. Disapplied in the following cases.
Esso V Mardon (1976)
Spring V Guardian Assurance (1995)
Chaudry V Prabhkar (1989)
Development of Hedley Byrne and supply of information
Smith V Eric Bush
Relationship between the valuer and the purchaser is aking to a contract. The valuer knows that the purchaser has paid for the valuation and the valuer also knows that the valuation will determine whether or not the purchaser buys the house.
if it is foresseable that if the advise is negligent the recipient is likely to suffer damage, that there is a sufficiently proximate relationship and it is just fair and reasonable.
If the valuation is negligent and is relied on damage to the purchaser is foreseeable.
There is proximity because of the surveyors knowledge that the valuation will be relied on, over 90% of purchasers did so and because the valuer only obtains the work because the purchaser is willing to pay his fee.
It is just fair and reasonable to impose a duty because the advise is given in a professional situation not a social context.
Must ask whether the surveyors by reason of the proximate relationship are deemed to have assumed responsibility to the purchaser.