Tai Hing Cotton Mill v Liu Chong Hing Bank: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Tai Hing Cotton Mills v Liu Chong Hing Bank - Case Note to Tai Hing Cotton Mill v Liu Chong Hing Bank - Case Note) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Neatly summed up by Lord Scarman, thus: | Neatly summed up by Lord Scarman, thus: | ||
{{Box|Their lordships do not believe that there is anything to the advantage of the | {{Box|Their lordships do not believe that there is anything to the advantage of the law’s development in searching for a liability in tort where the parties are in a contractual relationship.}} | ||
Sadly, overruled | Sadly, overruled by {{casenote|Henderson|Merrett}}. | ||
A good chap, that Lord Scarman. | |||
====See==== | ====See==== | ||
*[[concurrent liability]] | *[[concurrent liability]] | ||
*[[negligence, fraud or wilful default]] | *[[negligence, fraud or wilful default]] | ||
Revision as of 17:03, 20 October 2016
A case, sadly now discredited, on concurrent liability in contract and tort.
Neatly summed up by Lord Scarman, thus:
- Their lordships do not believe that there is anything to the advantage of the law’s development in searching for a liability in tort where the parties are in a contractual relationship.
Sadly, overruled by Henderson v Merrett.
A good chap, that Lord Scarman.