Duty III – Pure Economic Loss

2020 ◽  
pp. 167-214
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Pure Economic Loss

The case of ‘losses in any event’: a question of duty, cause or damages?

Legal Studies ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 558-585
Author(s):  
Mark Stiggelbout
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
General Argument ◽  
The Real ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Careful Comparison

This paper considers the relevance of a finding that, even absent the defendant's unlawfulness, the private law claimant would have suffered the losses claimed. It provides a principled framework for considering the issues raised by such a finding of ‘losses in any event’, arguing that it should be distinguished both from causation of injury and from the scope of the defendant's duty of care, and that it should be treated as raising a question of damages. It highlights the need, particularly in pure economic loss cases, for a careful comparison of the real and the hypothetical losses so as to determine whether the latter would indeed have been losses in any event. In this regard, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd is subjected to close scrutiny. A more general argument advanced is that tort and contract both do and should adopt similar approaches in this field.

Hedley Byrne in the House of Lords: an interpretation

Legal Studies ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 376-389
Author(s):  
Nicholas J McBride ◽  
Andrew Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
House Of Lords

The House of Lords has now handed down decisions in six cases which have involved extended discussions of the scope of liability to compensate another for pure economic loss under the Hedley Byme principle. It seems reasonable to suppose that we can now arrive, on the basis of those decisions, at some conclusions as to when and why such liability arises. In this article we attempt to amve at such conclusions. In so doing we avoid using the usual terminology- ‘duty of care’, ‘proximity’, ‘just and reasonable’, ‘policy’, ‘reliance’, ‘assumption of responsibility’, ‘equivalent to contract’, even ‘negligence’-which an analysis of the scope and rationale of liability under Hedley Byme would be expected to employ.

scholarly journals Tortious liability for pure economic loss

1979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ευστάθιος Μπανάκας
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Comparative Examination ◽  
Individual Style

Financial harm may be caused in many different ways. It can be said that it appears in several different ’’types", each produced in distinct factual circumstances. Different "types" of financial harm may demand a different treatment by the law. The considerations that ought to determine the policy of the law vary together with the factual . circumstances, in which each particular type offinancial harm becomes manifested. Thence the need for a separate examination of the major, or "generic", types of such harm, a need that has already been - detected by Comparative lawyers writing on the subject.(20) The present study will concentrate on the problem ' of financial harm that is not the product of a harmful intention (21) . In the Common Law of Negligence this problem is known as the "pure economic loss" problem. The solutions given to it by English Law are compared to the solutions of the French Law of Torts, and to those of the law of Torts of the German Federal Republic (West Germany)(22). The compared Tort systems not only are leadingthe major legal traditions of our age, each employing its own individual "style" (23), but, also, operate in virtually similar social and economic environments. This should allow the comparison to expose more easily the true merits of any "stylistic" idiosyncrasies, thatthey might possess in this particular connection. The problem of pure economic, loss caused by erroneous advice or information is not examined in * detail in the present study. It has been already the subject of comprehensive Comparative examination (24).

12. Non-Physical Damage and Liability for Economic Loss

Business Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 300-317
Author(s):  
James Marson ◽  
Katy Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Nervous Shock

This chapter continues on from the previous chapter in discussing liability in negligence for physical damage and considers the potential liability that businesses and individuals may face when they provide advice in the nature of their business, when they cause economic losses not associated with physical damage, and where the claimant suffers a psychiatric injury or nervous shock due to the acts of the tortfeasor. Recently, there has been an increase in instances of imposing liability on employers for the stress and associated health problems suffered by their employees. In the absence of physical damage, restrictions are placed on the imposition of liability for pure economic loss, although such loss has been widened to include damages for negligent misstatements. Of crucial importance is that businesses are aware of the implications of providing information in the course of their professional activities that may cause an investor or client loss through negligence.

11. The Tort of Negligence

2019 ◽  
pp. 299-334
Author(s):  
Lucy Jones
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Breach Of Duty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference

This chapter discusses the difference between the law of torts and contract and criminal law. It explores the tort of negligence, considering the necessary elements for a claim of negligence, namely the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care, and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach of duty. The chapter considers the special requirements for the recovery of pure economic loss and for loss as a result of psychiatric injuries, looking at both primary and secondary victims. The principles relating to breach of a duty of care, including the standard of care, are discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the final element, considering the need for a causal link between the breach of duty by the defendant and the damage suffered by the claimant.

12. Economic Loss, the Liability of Professional Advisors, and Psychiatric Injury

Business Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Marson ◽  
Katy Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Economic Loss ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Physical Damage ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
Nervous Shock

This chapter continues on from the previous chapter in discussing liability in negligence for physical damage and considers the potential liability that businesses and individuals may face when they provide advice in the nature of their business, when they cause economic losses not associated with physical damage, and where the claimant suffers a psychiatric injury or nervous shock due to the acts of the tortfeasor. Recently, there has been an increase in instances of imposing liability on employers for the stress and associated health problems suffered by their employees. In the absence of physical damage, restrictions are placed on the imposition of liability for pure economic loss, although such loss has been widened to include damages for negligent misstatements. Of crucial importance is that businesses are aware of the implications of providing information in the course of their professional activities that may cause an investor or client loss through negligence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document