logo

Negligent Misrepresentation PDF

   

Added on  2021-06-14

6 Pages1552 Words129 Views
Issue: the issue in this question is if Peter can sue Wollogong counsel in negligence for theeconomic loss suffered by it as a result of the negligent misrepresentation made by the Council.In this regard needs to be noted that Peter was aware of the fact that the certificate has beenissued negligently and in fact there was a road widening proposal. Rule: The law provides that there are certain circumstances, where liability in tort may ariseregarding a false statement that has been made negligently and where the other person has reliedon the statement to its detriment. In such a case, the remedy available to the party, to whom thestatement was made, is damages in tort. Such liability is an example of the liability that arisesunder the tort of negligence (San Sebastian Pty Ltd v The Minister, 1986). That ability isimposed on a person who has a duty of care and such duty has been breached by actingnegligently and the result is that the other party has suffered a loss. However in this context, apolitician has to be made, to a limited extent, the liability regarding negligent misstatement hasbeen the subject of judicial decision that may be considered as being some particular principlesin this field.In this way, the tort of negligent misstatement can be described as an inaccurate statement thathas been made honestly carelessly, generally in the form of advice given by the party that hasspecial skills or knowledge and to the party that does not have the skills or knowledge. There arecertain common elements of torts, including the tort of negligence. Fault: it has to be established that a tortuous act has been committed by one party, intentionallyor negligently.

Actual damage: the plaintiff has established that actual damage or loss has been suffered as aresult of such tortuous act.Remedy: because the law of torts is primarily concerned with compensating the victims insteadof punishing the wrongdoer, it is important that the courts try to place the victim in the sameposition in which he or she would have been if the wrongful act did not took place. In this regard, it is required that one party should initially have a duty of care towards the otherso that such party can be held liable in the negligence. In this context, duty of care can bedescribed as the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill that would have been exercised by anynormal, reasonable person (Spring v Guardian Assurance plc., 1995). Hence it is for the plaintiffto establish that the other party owed the duty of care. For this purpose, the plaintiff may berequired to consider the three-step test for the purpose of establishing that defendant had a dutyof care towards the plaintiff. For this purpose, it has to be considered:Foreseeability: If it was reasonably foreseeable for the alleged wrongdoers that theconduct is likely to cause harm to the other party.Proximity Test: if there was a physical, factual or circumstantially present between theparties.Vulnerability: needs to be seen if the plaintiff was vulnerable to harm due to the conductof the defendant. These requirements need to be fulfilled in order to establish that the elements of duty of careexisted in a case related negligent misstatement (B.T. Australia and another v Raine and HornePty Ltd., 1983). The facts of Shaddock V Parramatta City Council (1981) ALR 385 are similar to the facts of thepresent case if this is the issue before the court to decide the circumstances where the local

council can be held liable regarding information supplied by the general public. It was held inthis case that duty of care is applicable regarding a person who provides information or advice tothe other party if the person carries on business or profession, and in the course of it, is providinginformation on advice of the particular kind that requires the exercise of skills and competence oris otherwise, the person professes to have the skill and competence and provides information oradvice when such person is aware that the other party is going to rely on such information(Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Peat Marwick Hungerfords, 1997). In this case, the court had relied on an earlier judgment delivered in Mutual Life v Evatt (1968)122 CLR 556 regarding the question when the duty of care comes into existence for the purposeof holding the defendant liable for negligently making a wrong statement. Therefore the relevant rule in this regard is that whenever information or advice is given by aperson the other regarding a serious matter and under circumstances where the party givingadvice realizes that the other party is going to act and rely on such advice or information, there isa duty on the part of the party giving the advice to exercise reasonable care while providing theinformation or advice (Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman, 1990). The term contributory negligence is used for describing the actions of an injured person whomay also have contributed or caused the injuries suffered by him or her. In this way, the conceptof contributory negligence is used for characterizing the conduct that results in an unreasonablerisk to the person. The idea behind this concept is that it is also the duty of the individual to actas a reasonable person. Where a person does not act as a reasonable person and suffers an injury,such person can be held completely or partially responsible for the injuries suffered by him evenif another party was also involved in the accident.

End of preview

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

Related Documents
Rights and Liabilities in Corporation Law
|11
|2569
|78

BLAW204 - Business Law - Study Of Torts
|10
|2605
|40

Contract Law | Assignment (Doc)
|11
|2727
|158

Hypothetical ILAC Questions on Misstatement Tort
|5
|921
|162

Tort in Negligence of an Individual Person : Essay
|6
|2052
|656

Principles of the Law of Torts : Report
|14
|4084
|70