{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Pre+D+v+S+Table - PRE DONOGHUE v STEVENSON Defective Item...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PRE- DONOGHUE v STEVENSON Defective Item Facts Judgment for RD How courts treated past cases Remarks Langridge v Levy Plaintiff: Son of the buyer of the gun (George Langridge). Defendant: Salesman Gun made by Nock D falsely and fraudulently warranted said gun to have been made by Nock and to be a good safe and secure gun. D had full knowledge and notice that the gun was not made by Nock and was inferior, unsafe, & ill- manufactured when he made said warranty. The gun burst and exploded, causing P to be greatly cut, wounded, maimed, mutilating his left hand such that it had to be amputated. Plaintiff If D had made a dishonest representation to P, knowing that the P (or 3 rd party) would act upon the faith of it being true, but had received damage thereby, D would be responsible. If the representation was never made, the dangerous act would never have been done. [8,9] As there is fraud and damage, the result being one that was contemplated by the defendant at the time, the party guilty of fraud is responsible to the party injured. [10] Court extended rule in Pasley v Freeman : A mere naked falsehood is not enough to give a right of action; but if it be a falsehood told with an intention that it should be acted upon by the party injured, and that act must produce damage to him, D is responsible. (Principle would apply if 3 rd party involved.) Decided that D responsible for consequences of his fraud. (Not decided whether P knew of false representation, or if defendant responsible to someone not in his contemplation at time of sale.) Winterbottom v Wright Plaintiff: Mail-Coachman Defendant: Contractor for supply of mail coaches. Mail- Coach D had contracted with Postmaster- General that it would be his sole and exclusive duty the mail-coach would be kept in a fit, proper, safe and secure state. The mail coach gave way because of latent defects, causing the P to be lamed for life. Defendant The action is brought simply because the D was a contractor with a 3 rd person; and it is contended that thereupon he became liable to everybody who might use the carriage. [5] Contract was made with Postmaster-general alone. If held that plaintiff could sue in such a case, there is no point at which such actions would stop. The only safe rule is to confine the right to recover to those who enter into the contract. [7]
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern