Negligent misstatement: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Recently supported in a good outing for the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland in {{casenote|Walsh|Jones Lang Lasalle}}. | Recently supported in a good outing for the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland in {{casenote|Walsh|Jones Lang Lasalle}}. | ||
{{ | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Negligence]] | *[[Negligence]] | ||
*[[Concurrent liability]] | *[[Concurrent liability]] |
Revision as of 11:36, 18 January 2020
A germane category of non-contractual liability that can often sit side-by-side with contractual liabilities: one not to be sniffed at – often the liability will fall outside the ambit of an associated contract, so questions of concurrent liability -– already a difficult area of the law in any case – will not get you home.
The modern law on negligent misstatement all flows from a single, celebrated case: Hedley Byrne v Heller – which, irony of ironies, found that whilst one could be liable for a negligent misstatement, in this case the defendant was not, on account of an artfully placed disclaimer of exactly the liability in question.
Recently supported in a good outing for the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland in Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle.