Pure+Economic+Loss+Caused+by+Negligent+Acts


 * __Damage to a 3rd Party’s Property__**

D may owe a DOC to P for PEL caused by negligent acts, if the D knew, or ought to have known that the P as an individual might suffer PEL if D was careless: **//Caltex//**
 * à Reasonable Foreseeability**

__Indeterminate liability:__ **//Perre//**
 * à Salient Features**
 * If the potential Ps in a case are indeterminate, in the sense that they cannot be identified before the incident, the court is unlikely to find that there is a DOC owed.
 * If the amount of people that could be harmed is determinable, as is the type of harm suffered, a DOC may exist: **//Johnson Tiles//** (despite the existence of 1.4 million gas customers, liability to gas customers would not be indeterminate).

__Interference w Ds legitimate business activities:__ **//Perre//**
 * If the parties were in competition with each other, the court is less likely to find a DOC because the whole point of competition is to cause harm to the competitor.
 * If the D already owed a DOC to someone else regarding the conduct in question, the court is more likely to find a duty to the P because the imposition of the duty would not be burdening free economic activity – the activity is already burdened.

__Vulnerability:__ **//Perre//**
 * If the P is unable to be reasonably expected to take steps to guard against the harm, the court is more likely to find a duty.
 * Protection against the risk of harm could be insurance, or a change of living habits: **//Johnson Tiles//**.

__Ds knowledge:__ **//Perre//**
 * If D knew or ought to have known that if he was careless the P would be harmed, the court is more likely to find a duty.
 * D must have actual knowledge as to whether the Ps would suffer PEL.

__Ds Control:__ **//Perre//**
 * If the D was in control there is more likely to be a duty.
 * E.g. D was in control because he controlled the seeds and where they were to be planted. If D sold the seeds, they would not have been in his control.

__Contractual Regime__: **//Johnson Tiles//**
 * If there is a contract between the P and D, it will point away from there being a DOC, especially if the contract allocates risk or responsibility in the event of a negligent act. By entering into a contract, the parties intend to be governed by it rather than by general law.
 * Exception – where there is a standard form contract with a big company who has unequal bargaining power.

__Statutory Regime__: **//Johnson Tiles//**
 * The presence of a statute dealing with the particular area of law in question will point away from their being a DOC owed. It suggests that parliament alone regulates the area, and negligence should not interfere.

__Assumption and Reliance__: **//Johnson Tiles//**
 * If the D has taken responsibility to do something (created an assumption in the P), and the P has relied on that assumption, there will be a DOC.


 * __Breach of a Contract or Undertaking to a 3rd Party__**


 * à This section applies to solicitors**
 * An S can be held liable for PEL cause by professional negligence. An S can also be held liable to a 3rd Party for PEL where that parties relies on the S: **//Hawkins//**.
 * An S can owe a DOC to a 3rd Party who is a beneficiary under the will or would be if the will were properly made: **//Hill//**


 * à Reasonable Foreseeability**
 * Is it reasonably foreseeable that if S does not take reasonable care in drafting/executing the will, a beneficiary (3rd Party) could suffer PEL?


 * à Salient Features: //Hill v Van Erp//** (**Reasons for DOC)**

__Indeterminate Liability__ - D can only be held liable to the beneficiaries and clients. This is a limited class/number of people that can be determined in advance.

__Interference with Ds legitimate business interests__ - Recognising a duty will not effect Ds economic activity, because D is not acting for financial gain.

__Conflicts of Law__ - There is no conflict with any other areas of law, particularly contract, because there is no contract between the S and beneficiary.

__Assumption and Reliance__ - The S accepts responsibility for the will from the client, because it is a specialised skill. The beneficiary duely relies on the assumption that the execution of the will, will be carried out properly.

__Conflict between client and beneficiary__ - The intention of the client and the intention of the beneficiary are the same. C wants to have his will carried out, and so imposing a duty on the S will not conflict with that.

__Enforcement & Control__ - If not DOC is imposed, there is no way of forcing the S to carry out the will. It is in S’s control as to whether or not the bequest is successful.


 * __Defective Products or Structures__**

Occurs in cases where the property was defective all along, and the P sues for the reduction in the value of the property – this is the only scenario which involves PEL. The defective goods are not worth what P paid for them.

Is it reasonably foreseeable that is a structure is built badly, someone later will suffer an economic loss? **//Bryan v Moloney//**
 * à Reasonable Foreseeability**

__Assumption of responsibility__
 * à Salient Features**
 * D had assumed responsibility of building the house properly, and the P relied on the house being constructed properly: **//Bryan v Moloney//**
 * There will be no assumption of responsibility by the D when the P refuses to allow D to complete his work: **//Woolcock//**

__Reliance__
 * P relies on the assumption of responsibility that the quality of product or structure will be satisfactory: **//Bryan v Moloney//**

__Special Relationship__
 * P and D will be connected through the house: **//Bryan v Moloney//**

__Vulnerability__
 * P must be unable to protect themselves against the consequences of Ds negligence.
 * D could argue that P could have checked the work done: **//Woolcock//**
 * D could argue that P could have got insurance or inquired etc.

__Significant investment__
 * P must show that the purchase of the property constituted a significant investment.
 * The purchase of a commercial property to run a business is not necessarily a significant investment, but the purchase of a house is: **//Woolcock//**
 * Consider whether the house is a holiday house or a living home.


 * Back to Torts B**
 * Previous**
 * Next**