82,976
edits
Hedley Byrne v Heller: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The great case of {{cite|Hedley Byrne|Heller|1964|AC|465}}, known reverently to all students of the law as ''[[Hedley Byrne]]'' which established as long ago as 1964 the principle that one might be liable in {{tag|tort}} for [[negligent misstatement]], nothing more than confirming something that [[Lord Denning]] had dissentingly been grumbling about since 1951. | {{cn}}The great case of {{cite|Hedley Byrne|Heller|1964|AC|465}}, known reverently to all students of the law as ''[[Hedley Byrne]]'' which established as long ago as 1964 the principle that one might be liable in {{tag|tort}} for [[negligent misstatement]], nothing more than confirming something that [[Lord Denning]] had dissentingly been grumbling about since 1951. | ||
Some irony, therefore, that in that particular case, the defendant was found ''not'' to have had a duty of care, since he had effectively disclaimed one. Lord Devlin found that there was a “general disclaimer of responsibility” which appeared to him to be conclusive. He agreed with Lord Reid and he stated (at p.533):- | Some irony, therefore, that in that particular case, the defendant was found ''not'' to have had a duty of care, since he had effectively disclaimed one. Lord Devlin found that there was a “general disclaimer of responsibility” which appeared to him to be conclusive. He agreed with Lord Reid and he stated (at p.533):- | ||