This is an extract of our Duty Pure Economic Loss By Negligent Words document, which we sell as part of our Torts Law Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of New South Wales students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Torts Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Class 4: Duty- Pure economic loss by negligent words:
* It is not consequential economic loss. You just lose money because of the words of someone else. More people are at risk of this happening- now everyone is a shareholder. You can't find a physical injury but now it is more debatable because capitalist systems are meant to have competition and take money off people. Why should we compensate for a loss that part of the rules of the game?
In class discussion:
* Teddy (owner of company) v government o Teddy can't sue. He relied on unsigned emails.
* Bernice v Teddy o Teddy induced Bernice into his company. o Speculative so no duty of care.
* Bernice v Eco Investment Bank o Had to provide accurate information?
o Investment bank had a duty of care but they performed it by saying that no company is failure proof. o Disclaimer against liability. o Does she have a duty of care to inform why she wants the info or does the service have to be at the same level always? Privacy rights?
o The guy who gave the advice was new and not experienced. You need to get one of these to have a duty of care. Use the information from the Bernice example.
* You have to have negligent misstatement but that is not enough.
* 'Equivalent contract'. Was there a contract?
* 'Reasonable reliance'. E.g. is it reasonable Bernice rely on the information from the bank.
* 'Assumption of responsibility'. Was the bank responsible for the advice?
* 'using special skill'. Was the bank using a special skill in giving Bernice advice?
* Purpose of asking for the information?
* Inducement? Does this just show an assumption of responsibility. Page 170 Hedley Byrne and Co v Heller and Partners (1964) - Does a company who gives gratuitous advice owe a duty of care to someone wanting to know if they should invest? Yes but not when there is a disclaimer. Facts:
* Hedley Byrne were advertising agents.
* They put substantial orders for advertising time on the T.V. on behalf of Easipower Ltd and were personally liable.
* Heller and Partners were merchant bankers with whom Easipower Ltd had an account. They indicated in writing that the company was good for normal business relations and could meet the commitment.
* Hedley Byrne contacted Heller and Partners again about a 100,000 pound per annum advertising contract. They made the statement; "Respectably constituted company, considered good for ordinary business engagements. Your figures are larger than we are accustomed to see".
* Easipower went into liquidation. They lost 17,661 pounds. Remedy sought:
* Hedley Byrne claimed that amount, alleging that Heller and Partners were in breach of a duty in giving their replies negligently. Prior proceedings:
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts Law Notes.