The development of assumption responsibility is paramount in pure economic loss.
Discuss.
Intro:
- What is PEL,
o Hedley Byrne: pure economic loss is financial damage suffered as the result of
the negligent act of another party which is not accompanied by any physical
damage to a person or property.
- What’s the test PEL
o First AR: Custom & Excise.
- Set the argument.
o Assess the development of the law and the courts discretion leading to
flexibility – increased success
o Limitations due to the apparent confusions in development – uncertainty
o Limiting factors due to incremental/Caparo
o Conclude: not paramount but important and can lead to claims succeeding
where they otherwise wouldn’t have.
Setting out the law/ development
Assumption of responsibility was developed in the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller. Stating
that in order for a duty to be imposed
PEL can arise in two principle situations; from the acquisition of defective property and PEL
arising from a negligent statement or advice or negligent performance of a service.
The general test as set out in Hedley Byrne is that the defendant professes to have some
expertise, knowledge and skill. Secondly, that person thought that the exercise of that skill
would benefit the claimant, who then relies on it to their detriment.
Lord Bingham in the case of Customs & Excise v Barclays stated that the test of assumption
of responsibility provides ‘a test first, which if answered positively, may obviate the need for
further inquiry.’
The law has developed massively over recent years since assumption of responsibility was
first implemented in 1963, which will be discussed later in the essay.
Point 1: Flexibility of the law and fact specific cases.
The developments in the law has led to a great amount of adaptions and flexibility in the
approach with assumption of responsibility particularly with PEL, allowing a duty to be
imposed in more cases than otherwise would have been possible if the test was static.
(1) For the purpose of the defendant statement, D professes to have expertise,
knowledge and skill
Hedley Byrne: A duty might be owed where the purpose of the statement was the same as
the purpose for which it was relied on.
- Demonstrates flexibility, as the courts have discretion on whether a duty can be
owed.
Discuss.
Intro:
- What is PEL,
o Hedley Byrne: pure economic loss is financial damage suffered as the result of
the negligent act of another party which is not accompanied by any physical
damage to a person or property.
- What’s the test PEL
o First AR: Custom & Excise.
- Set the argument.
o Assess the development of the law and the courts discretion leading to
flexibility – increased success
o Limitations due to the apparent confusions in development – uncertainty
o Limiting factors due to incremental/Caparo
o Conclude: not paramount but important and can lead to claims succeeding
where they otherwise wouldn’t have.
Setting out the law/ development
Assumption of responsibility was developed in the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller. Stating
that in order for a duty to be imposed
PEL can arise in two principle situations; from the acquisition of defective property and PEL
arising from a negligent statement or advice or negligent performance of a service.
The general test as set out in Hedley Byrne is that the defendant professes to have some
expertise, knowledge and skill. Secondly, that person thought that the exercise of that skill
would benefit the claimant, who then relies on it to their detriment.
Lord Bingham in the case of Customs & Excise v Barclays stated that the test of assumption
of responsibility provides ‘a test first, which if answered positively, may obviate the need for
further inquiry.’
The law has developed massively over recent years since assumption of responsibility was
first implemented in 1963, which will be discussed later in the essay.
Point 1: Flexibility of the law and fact specific cases.
The developments in the law has led to a great amount of adaptions and flexibility in the
approach with assumption of responsibility particularly with PEL, allowing a duty to be
imposed in more cases than otherwise would have been possible if the test was static.
(1) For the purpose of the defendant statement, D professes to have expertise,
knowledge and skill
Hedley Byrne: A duty might be owed where the purpose of the statement was the same as
the purpose for which it was relied on.
- Demonstrates flexibility, as the courts have discretion on whether a duty can be
owed.
