Negligent misstatement: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
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}}.


{{seealso}}
{{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.

See also