Pre+D+v+S+Table

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

Info iconThis 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]
Background image of page 1

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

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

This note was uploaded on 04/13/2011 for the course FINANCE 101 taught by Professor Richard during the Spring '11 term at UCLA.

Page1 / 5

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

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online