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) m (Amwelladmin moved page Tai Hing Cotton Mill v Liu Chong Hing Bank - Case Note to Tai Hing Cotton Mill v Liu Chong Hing Bank) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A case, sadly now discredited, on [[concurrent liability]] in [[contract]] and [[tort]]. | {{cn}}A case, sadly now discredited, on [[concurrent liability]] in [[contract]] and [[tort]]. | ||
Neatly summed up by Lord Scarman, thus: | 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 | Sadly, overruled by {{casenote|Henderson|Merrett}}. | ||
A good chap, that Lord Scarman. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[concurrent liability]] | *[[concurrent liability]] | ||
*[[negligence, fraud or wilful default]] | *[[negligence, fraud or wilful default]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:28, 19 December 2020
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
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.