Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Pure Economic Loss - Coggle Diagram

- - - - which are inaccurate
      - made without proper degree of skill/care of accuracy
      - caused C financial loss
      - BUT no warranty given
        
        (belong in contract law)
        
        standard = reasonable care
    - - Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1)
        
        Thomas v Taylor Wimpey Developments Ltd
        
        Cramaso LLP v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield (Scotland)
      - fraudulent misrepresentation
        
        Derry v Peek
    - - variety of tests
        
        1) assumption of responsibility test
        
        has D assumed responsibility for exercising care and skill in saying what they did?
        
        and did C reasonably rely on this?
        
        when there is no clear assumption of responsibility, instead use:
        
        2) Caparao test
        
        a) was economic loss to C a foreseeable consequence of D's statement?
        
        b) were C and D legally proximate?
        
        c) is it fair, just and reasonable to impose DOC on D?
        
        (objective test)
        
        Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc
        
        3) incremental test
        
        law should develop new areas gradually by analogy with established cases
        
        only used as a cross check
        
        closer facts are to established scenario more likely duty to be found
        
        reasonable foreseeability of economic loss required
        
        Caparo
      - scenarios
        
        bi-partite
        
        C = loss sufferer
        
        D = statement maker
        
        MLC Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt
        
        Chaudhry v Prabhakar
        
        Harris v Evans
        
        Patchett v Swimming Pool and Allied Trades Assn
        
        tri-partite
        
        X= third party that passes on info
        
        D = statement maker
        
        C = loss sufferer
        
        Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
        
        Smith v Eric S Bush (a firm) ;Harris v Wyre Forest DC
        
        Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
        
        the 'victim' situation
        
        C is NOT an advisee who has acted on statement and NEVER would rely on it
        
        another type
        
        the 'problem gambler'
        
        Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd
        
        Ehrentreu v IG Index Ltd (Rev 1)
        
        Spring v Guardian Assurance plc
        
        Harris v Evans
        
        McKie v Swindon College
  - - - limits of category still being explored
      - heavily influenced by policy considerations
- - - - intervening act may apply
        
        Gorham v British Telecom plc
      - Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd
      - Quinn v IG Index Ltd
- - - - 'the SAAMCO defence'