logo

Commercial and Corporation Law: Assignment

   

Added on  2021-05-31

6 Pages1449 Words29 Views
Running head: COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAWCommercial and Corporation LawName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note

1COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAWIssue: The issue in the present case is whether local Government can be held liable for givingnegligent misstatement to the public. Therefore, the issue in the present fact case, the issue iswhether Chloe can sue Burnside Council for giving incorrect information. Having relied on theinformation by the Council, Chloe signed the 2 year lease and thereafter saw the machineries, asa result of which Chloe suffered from nervous disorder due to the noise. The pertinent issue to beresolved is whether Chloe is legally empowered to file a suit against Burnside Council for givingher wrong information after Chloe made an enquiry regarding the construction of buildings in thepremises. Rule: The government bodies owe a duty of care towards the general public and those who arein the position of giving advice should exercise proper duty of care so that people relying onthose instruction are not mislead and they do not incur any loss. Any person who holds agovernment position and gives out information and advice to the general public, has to exerciseproper caution so that the person relying on his information does not suffer any loss. Therefore,in light of the advice or information he gives, he has to exercise proper skill and judgment andshould be competent to give such advice. Whenever the person giving out the information doesso, being fully aware that the person shall be relying on his skill and judgment is ought toexercise more skill and judgment. Therefore, in tort negligent misstatement is a when a person ofauthority makes a careless statement causing harm to someone who has relied on that judgment. In the case of Shaddock V Parramatta City Council (1981) Alr 3815 the court dealt with the caseif negligent misstatement and was involved in the decision making of fixing liability on theGovernment agency. In the case of Shaddock V Parramatta City Council (1981) Alr 385,Shaddock had purchased a property and had made an enquiry to the Council regarding the1Shaddock V Parramatta City Council (1981) Alr 385

2COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAWchances of the roads widening. The Council did not make a detailed enquiry and made a verycareless statement that there was no possibility of the roads widening which was not the truthbecause there was a proposal regarding the widening of the road. As a result of which, the valueof the property reduced and the applicant faced severe loss. The appellants made a claim thatthey had suffered loss due to their reliance on erroneous information obtained from therespondent. The respondent had not acted in the best interest of the general public and given outincorrect information. Duty of care: the case also dealt with duty of care and associated with that the liability ofproviding negligent misstatement. Therefore, the court first checked if there was a duty of care ornot and to satisfy that, the court applied the test to check if the Government body had the duty ofcare towards the applicant2. If the defendant gives out an advice of a serious nature or related tobusiness undertaking, the defendant needs to be aware that the plaintiff intended to rely on thatinformation. The court refereed to the judgment passed in the case of Mutual Life & Citizens’Assurance Co. Ltd, where the duty of care only subsists in cases where the person who iscarrying on a business or trade and in such cases giving advice that calls for skill. If cases whenthe defendant possesses skill and competence and makes the plaintiff believe that the informationis correct, he owes a duty of care towards the person acting on that advice. Liability is not limitedto those who have a special skill and competence but it includes those professionals who are inthe position of giving information3. Mason J said that in cases of advices pertaining to serious matters, which have an effect on theinquirer, the person giving the information has a duty to act cautiously4. In cases of government2Bohlen, Francis H. "Misrepresentation as Deceit, Negligence, or Warranty."Harvard Law Review42.6 (1929):733-747.3Smith, Jeremiah. "Liability for Negligent Language."Harvard Law Review(1900): 184-199.4Witting, Christian A.Liability for negligent misstatements. Oxford University Press, 2004.

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
The Issues Raised by Both Plaintiff and Defendant - Desklib
|10
|2443
|42

Application of Law - Assignment PDF
|5
|1385
|31

Legal Duty of Dandenong Council to Take Precautions Against Jack Smith
|6
|1737
|71

Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, and Defences for Negligence
|6
|1707
|393

Business Laws - Sample Assignment (PDF)
|8
|2165
|37

Application Law - Sample Assignment
|8
|1605
|48