This case study analyzes a scenario where Ellen, planning to open a meditation studio, relies on information from a council employee regarding potential construction noise. The analysis explores whether the council owed Ellen a duty of care, whether that duty was breached, and whether Ellen suffered loss as a result of the breach. It examines the principles of negligent misstatement, proximate relationship, and foreseeability of harm. The study concludes that the council employee's misstatement, made within the course of employment, makes the council liable for Ellen's business losses due to the construction noise. However, the analysis also determines that Ellen's nervous disorder is too remote to be attributed to the council's actions. Finally, it addresses Ellen's breach of contract with her landlady due to non-payment of rent, highlighting her potential liability for that breach.
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
