Template:Concurrent liability: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "The sensible observation, in {{casenote|Tai Hing Cotton Mills|Liu Chong Hing Bank}}, that there isn't "anything to the advantage of the law's development in searching for a li..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*The Purchaser has suffered no loss but has no cause of action for breach. | *The Purchaser has suffered no loss but has no cause of action for breach. | ||
Where there's an ordinary contract between two folks and no aggrieved third party, it would be absurd for tortious duties to widen or constrict the allocation of risk set out in the contract. In any case you can always exclude tortious liability in the contract if you are really worried about it. Like so: | But in normal cases there's little to be said for [[concurrent liability]]. Where there's an ordinary contract between two folks and no aggrieved third party, it would be absurd for tortious duties to widen or constrict the allocation of risk set out in the contract. In any case you can always exclude tortious liability in the contract if you are really worried about it. Like so: | ||
{{box|This is a contract. Neither party will be liable to the other in tort under this agreement.}} | {{box|This is a contract. Neither party will be liable to the other in tort under this agreement.}} | ||
Revision as of 10:19, 28 June 2016
The sensible observation, in Tai Hing Cotton Mills v Liu Chong Hing Bank, that there isn't "anything to the advantage of the law's development in searching for a liability in tort where the parties are in a contractual relationship" has been long since overruled - 1995's Henderson v Merrett being the most prominent example.
But these are typically "builders' liability" cases where the defendant had a contract with one person who sold the house to another before it, inevitably, collapsed. Here:
- The contracting party has a cause of action for breach but has suffered no loss.
- The Purchaser has suffered no loss but has no cause of action for breach.
But in normal cases there's little to be said for concurrent liability. Where there's an ordinary contract between two folks and no aggrieved third party, it would be absurd for tortious duties to widen or constrict the allocation of risk set out in the contract. In any case you can always exclude tortious liability in the contract if you are really worried about it. Like so:
- This is a contract. Neither party will be liable to the other in tort under this agreement.