Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Pure Economic Loss - Coggle Diagram

- - - - test if no disclaimer
        
        proximity(nearly equivalent of contract and knew would rely on it) - is there special relationship - an assumption of responsibility
        
        reasonable foreseeable - should the advisor of known other person relying on advice
      - change in law for disclaimers by legislation - 1977 England, Ireland after 1995 EU regulation
    - - key factors to consider
        
        was adviser aware or infer purpose for which advice sought
        
        must be aware info being communicated to other party
        
        aware likely to act on advce without independent inquiry
        
        act to detriment
      - held only owe duty to shareholders exercising power as shareholders, have to also know or ought to have known advice acted upon
    - - 3 party case - A report, gives to B, who gives copy to C
    - - Ross v Caunters solicitors drew up will, allowed a beneficiary's spouse to witness it, meant plaintiff (beneficiary) could no longer receive anything - owed duty to testator to carry out wishes and duty extended to plaintiff as identified in will
      - Doran v Delaney asked if a land dispute settled, should have made sure before answering -not actually settled had said it was
      - Spencer v Irish Bank Rsolution even if innocently made could still be liable if negligent
    - - Bates v Minister for Fisheries fisherman asked for advice on if they could fish in an area, department said they could (had been entitled to not answer) by answering they made themselves liable
- - - - liability unpredictable
      - hard to quanitfy parties and damages
      - insurance should protect loss
        
        Leigh & Sullivan v Aliakmon don't want to deter insurance
      - if involving public authority is is the best use of public money
      - Weller v Foot and Mouth Institute after outbreak of disease told couldn't open market, lost money - no recovery - if he was allowed to recover where does it stop - hotel owner, bar owner so many people benefit from market would have lost money
      - flood gates argument
        
        don't want indeterminate amount of claims
    - - after Anns began to spread
        
        Junior Books v Veitchi
      - no universal rule though
  - - - McShane Fruit v Johnson power cut caused fruit to decay, loss of future profits - court held - preliminary basis - just because economic doesn't mean can't recover
    - - Irish Paper Sacks v John Sisk excavating trench, severed cable which meant power cut for 2 days no recovery