82,975
edits
Hedley Byrne v Heller: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The great case establishing the principle that one might be liable in {{tag|tort}} for negligent misstatement. Some irony, therefore, that in that particular case, the d...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The great case | The great case, known reverently to all students of the law as ''[[Hedley Byrne]]'' which established as long ago as 1954 the principle that one might be liable in {{tag|tort}} for [[negligent misstatement]], nothing more than confirming something that Lord Denning had dissentingly been grumbling about since 1951. | ||
Some irony, therefore, that in that particular case, the defendant was found ''not'' to have had a duty of care, since he had effectively disclaimed one. | Some irony, therefore, that in that particular case, the defendant was found ''not'' to have had a duty of care, since he had effectively disclaimed one. | ||
{{google2|Hedley|Byrne}} | {{google2|Hedley|Byrne}} | ||