1/16
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
Pure economic loss
This arises when:
An economic loss arises when there has been no damage to C’s property or person (ie a bad investment, lost contractual opportunity or inheritance)
The loss arises from damage to property which C has no proprietary interest in
Defective items
Pure economic loss: general rule
There is no duty of care for pure economic loss, and no exception if it is caused by a negligent act
Pure economic loss: general rule - precedent
Spartan Steel v Martin & Co [1973]
Exceptions
Pure economic loss caused by a negligent misstatement
Wills
References
Negligent misstatements
Where a negligent statement causes pure economic loss, there may be a duty of care owed
If the statement has also caused physical harm, the normal duty of care rules apply
Wills
A solicitor and other will-making entities owe a duty of care to the beneficiaries of a will for pure economic loss relating to inheritance
If the will provider can foresee, that the beneficiaries might suffer a loss due to their negligence, they have assumed a responsibility towards those beneficiaries
References
Referees owe a duty of care to the subject of the reference to provide an accurate reference
By agreeing to provide a reference, they have assumed responsibility to take reasonable care and skill when preparing the reference
Negligent misstatements: 3 tests
For a duty of care to be found in these cases, at least on of the following tests must be satisfied
Reasonable reliance
Assumption of responsibility
Special relationship of trust and confidence between parties
They are designed to establish a proximate relationship between parties and that it would be fair, just and reasonably to impose a duty
These tests often overlap
Reasonable reliance
To establish reasonable reliance, C must prove that:
They relied on D’s advice
It was reasonable of them to rely of D’s advice
D knew or ought to have known that C would rely on their advice
Reasonable reliance: C reasonably relying on advice
Factors to consider include:
D’s special skills or knowledge
C’s special skills or knowledge (D needs to be in a better position than C)
General context which advice is given in (eg business or social)
Other relevant general factors
Assumption of responsibility
Where D voluntarily assumes responsibility for the correctness of their statement
It is determined by considering whether, but for the lack of consideration, would the relationship be equivalent to a contract?
Assumption of responsibility: criteria
D communicated advice to C
D knew the purpose which C would use the advice
D knew or reasonably believed that C would rely on this advice
C acted on advice to their detriment
Assumption of responsibility: criteria - precedent
Caparo v Dickman [1990]
Special relationship of trust and confidence
This will arise where
The asking party trusts the other to exercise the required degree of care as required when providing the advice
Where it is reasonable for the asking party to rely on the advice given
The other party knew, or should have known, the asking party would rely on them
Structure of a pure economic loss claim
Loss
Duty of care - general rule or if an exception:
Reasonable reliance
Assumption of responsibility
Special relationship of trust and confidence
Follow usual negligence claim steps
Disclaimers
Where the advising party has taken positive steps against assuming responsibility for their statement, they may not owe a duty of care
If relying on a disclaimer, it must comply with UCTA 177
For consumer contracts, the CRA 2015 covers disclaimers
Disclaimers: considerations
Factors to consider when determining if a disclaimer is reasonable:
If the parties of equal bargaining power?
Whether it would have been reasonably feasible to obtain advice from an alternate source
The difficulty of the task undertaken by D
The practical consequences - considering the loss, the parties financial circumstances and insurance