Negligent misstatement: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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. | {{a|tort|}}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: {{casenote|Hedley Byrne|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. | The modern law on [[negligent misstatement]] all flows from a single, celebrated case: {{casenote|Hedley Byrne|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. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:50, 15 May 2024
|
The basic principles of tort
A Jolly Contrarian guide to loving thy neighbour™
|
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.