100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 31 - 33 out of 49 pages.
Negligent Misstatements (pg308)31
BIZLAW CHEAT SHEETAs provided in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964), liability can arise over negligentmisstatement. However, whether it depends on factors such as: -Whether given over social occasion or formal one. -whether it was given gratuitously or for payment of a fee.-Whether given by a professional or by person who held himself out as having knowledge or skill or a person who voluntarily assumed responsibility.However, in the case where there is a possibility of unlimited liability, there would not be a duty of care. -Whether the person making the statement knew there would be reliance-Whether there was actual reliance on statementAlso, if the statement has possibility of unlimited liability, then the courts loathe posing such liability, ie Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) (pg309)*For there to be sufficient degree of proximity before liability for negligent misstatement is actionable (ie duty of care in respect of negligent misstatements is likely to be established), the following conditions must usually be present (pg310)-Defendant must know the purposefor which advice is required-Defendant must know the advice will be communicatedto plaintiff either specially or as a member of an ascertainable class-Defendant must know that plaintiff is likely to relyon the information-Plaintiff must have reliedon the information to his detriment.As provided in Smith v Eric S Bush (1989),the courts held that the defendants were liable for negligent misstatement.Pure Economic Loss (pg310)Refers to situations where there is economic loss from a negligent actwhich is not accompanied byphysical injury or property damage, as seen in Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors)Ltd (1973). If pure economic loss allowed, it would lead to unlimited liability, and if made liable for loss, in order to protect himself in future, would charge high sums for services which is not in public interest. In Singapore, even if there is no physical injury or property damage, there can be a duty of care in respect of pure economic loss, provided there is very close proximity between the parties and it is not a case of unlimited liability as provided in RSP architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd (1996) In this case... apply the law to the case here... given that there was a close and proximate relationship between the parties such that X ought to have held Y in contemplation when carrying out his act as well as XXX being in the interest of the public, X owes Y a duty of care, on the facts of the case.Breach of duty of care(page 309)The plaintiff then has to establish that there was a breach of that duty of care. This refers to the omission to do something which a reasonableman would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do, as elaborated in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856).