Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Pure economic loss - Coggle Diagram
Pure economic loss
-
-
-
Hedley Byrne v Heller: assumption of responsibility towards C when giving advice. (In that case, advice given "without responsibility")
Empty concept? Courts could find D assumed a responsibility whenever they want to find he owed C a DoC
Applies in certain definable circumstances? McBride thinks applies only if D indicates to C he can safely rely on his advice.
Basic principle: if A advises B on a matter and objectively indicates to B that B can safely rely on that advice, A owes B a DoC not to give any incorrect advice on that matter.
Extended principle: professionals' DoC to act with the care and skill of a reasonably competent member of that profession. See authorities at McBride p185
Degree of care/skill: D can't be relied on to go beyond what he has objectively indicated he is capable of, implicitly or explicitly. Depends on the position of D: e.g. jeweller doing ear piercings (Philips v William Whiteley Ltd), junior house officer rather than consultant giving treatment (Wilsher v Essex Area HA)
-
Professionals providing a service under contract? Robinson v Jones (Contractors) limited Hedley Byrne to cases of professionals giving advice, drawing up plans etc. Correct?
-
Assuming responsibility a sufficient but not necessary condition for finding DoC in pure economic loss cases: may be other cases where DoC also exists. Not all economic loss cases are Hedley Byrne cases!