Template:Concurrent liability: Difference between revisions

In any weather, these are unusual cases. In the normal run of things there’s little to be said for [[concurrent liability]]. The fact pattern in these builders cases is little different from that in {{casenote|Donoghue|Stevenson}} - the paradigm negligence case ''par excellence'' — where the buyer of the ginger-beer was not the one consuming it<ref>The difference is that the purchaser ''gave'' the gingerbeer to the victim, and did not ''sell'' it.</ref>. 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 {{t|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: