82,891
edits
Template:Concurrent liability: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Extraordinary though it seems, technically it is true. Lord Scarman’s sensible observations in {{casenote|Tai Hing Cotton Mills|Liu Chong Hing Bank}}, that there isn’t “anything to the advantage of the law’s development in searching for a liability in tort where the parties are in a contractual relationship” has been long since overruled - 1995’s {{casenote|Henderson|Merrett}} being a prominent example. | Extraordinary though it seems, technically it is true. Lord Scarman’s sensible observations in {{casenote|Tai Hing Cotton Mills|Liu Chong Hing Bank}}, that there isn’t “anything to the advantage of the law’s development in searching for a liability in tort where the parties are in a contractual relationship” has been long since overruled - 1995’s {{casenote|Henderson|Merrett}} being a prominent example. | ||
But these are typically “builders’ liability” cases where a Defendant built a house for Person A, who sold it to Person B, upon whom it collapsed. Uniquely here, there is a gap between contractual bat and pad: | But these are typically “builders’ liability” cases where a Defendant built a house for Person A, who sold it to Person B, upon whom, at some significant remove, it collapsed. Uniquely here, there is a gap between contractual bat and pad: | ||
*Person A | *Person A had a [[contract]], for six years from the date of construction, and therefore a [[cause of action]] for breach against the Defendant but, sold the house at full value and has suffered no [[loss]]. | ||
*Person B has suffered a [[loss]] all right, but has no contract with (and therefore no [[cause of action]] for [[breach]] of one against) the Defendant, and cannot sue Person A who was innocent of any knowledge of the defect when it sold the house. | *Person B has suffered a [[loss]] all right, but has no contract with (and therefore no [[cause of action]] for [[breach]] of one against) the Defendant, and cannot sue Person A who was innocent of any knowledge of the defect when it sold the house. | ||