Rich Pugh Unit 8 Case Analysis

Rich Pugh Unit 8 Case Analysis - Case Analysis 1 Case...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case Analysis 1 Case Analysis: Week 8 Rich Pugh Kaplan University LS311: Business Law I Professor Nivea Castro, J.D. August 2, 2011
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Case Analysis 2 Facts/History Allen’s firm was hired to renovate Daniel and Sandra Estelle’s home. A line of credit was obtained to finance the cost of renovation and periodic evaluations were needed in order for funds to be disbursed. Allen did a majority of the renovations on their home. The Estelle’s found much of his work to be unacceptable, as did the bank’s inspector. Allen failed to act on the complaints and the Estelle’s filed a suit that his individual work was negligent. Issue Can Allen and his corporation be held liable for his tort of negligent work? Decision/Reason Chief Judge Brook dissented that the Estelle’s remedy only lied in contract because they suffered only economic loss and not personal injury due to Allen’s negligence. Economic interests are not entitled to protection against mere negligence and the Estelle’s were denied recovery of negligence on Allen’s part ("Case clips," 2003). Analysis
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/22/2011 for the course BUSINESS L ls311 taught by Professor Starcher during the Spring '11 term at Kaplan University.

Page1 / 4

Rich Pugh Unit 8 Case Analysis - Case Analysis 1 Case...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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