Template:Concurrent liability: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 9: Line 9:
Equity suggests Person B deserves compensation, and the defendant deserves to pay it, but the strict contractual lines get in the way. A concurrent duty in tort owed by the builder to that narrow and determinate group of neighbours — people who end up owning the house in the six years after it builds it — is a neat way of plugging the gap.
Equity suggests Person B deserves compensation, and the defendant deserves to pay it, but the strict contractual lines get in the way. A concurrent duty in tort owed by the builder to that narrow and determinate group of neighbours — people who end up owning the house in the six years after it builds it — is a neat way of plugging the gap.


These are unusual cases. In the normal run of things there’s little to be said for [[concurrent liability]]. In a straightforward bilateral contract with no aggrieved Person B, it would be absurd for tortious duties that arise at general law to widen or constrict the allocation of risk set out in the contract. You can contract out of tortious duties (even if that isn’t obvious in principle to you, Lord Goff said so in {{casenote|Merrett|Henderson}}). Unless your contract is uncommonly vague, by just having one you will have done so. You can always explicitly exclude tortious liability in the contract if you are really worried about it (though it does look a little “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]” to this pair of eyes. It’s not hard to do:
These are unusual cases. In the normal run of things there’s little to be said for [[concurrent liability]]. In a straightforward bilateral contract with no aggrieved Person B, it would be absurd for tortious duties that arise at general law to widen or constrict the allocation of risk set out in the contract. You can contract out of tortious duties (even if that isn’t obvious in principle to you, Lord Goff said so in {{casenote|Henderson|Merrett}}). Unless your contract is uncommonly vague, by just having one you will have done so. You can always explicitly exclude tortious liability in the contract if you are really worried about it (though it does look a little “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]” to this pair of eyes. It’s not hard to do:


{{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.}}