Case Law Flashcards

Question

? v EMI Electronics Ltd and BICC Construction Ltd (1980)

Answer 1

Independent Broadcasting Authority

Answer 2

Tag line - Unfit for purpose mast Key issue - D&B contractor responsible for “fit for purpose” Particulars; • Contractor engaged to D&B aerial mast at Emory Moor. • IBA had advised what they were looking for and use but no other info. • IBA had another mast at Winter Hill violently oscillate and wrote to BICC to confirm this would not happen. • BICC confirmed would be designed to avoid this (and implied it would be fit for purpose) • Some time after completion mast fell down due to asymmetrical ice loading and vortex shedding • BICC responsibility to re-build etc.

Answer 3

McKinney Foundations Ltd

Answer 4

Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd

Answer 5

Tag line - Defective pile & time at large Key issue - No provision in contract for EOT due to employer delay Particulars; • Peak bespoke contract (weighted very much in their favour) used - not standard contract. • McKinney D&B contractor for piling. • McKinney complete and off site. • Major defect found with 1 pile and a number of minor defects with other piles. • Peak took 58 weeks to decide on solution to rectify. • Actual remedial works took 6 weeks. • Peak tried to apply damages. • Found no mechanism in contract to grant EOT in contract due to delay caused by employer so LDs could not be applied - contractor given reasonable time to complete - time at large.

Answer 6

Tag line - Crankshaft and remoteness of damages Key issue - Remoteness of damages Particulars; • Hadley owned mill powered by steam engine which broke down due to broken crank shaft. • Baxendale hired to take old crankshaft to manufacturer long distance away so that replacement could be made and deliver said replacement to Hadley. • Agreed to deliver by 2nd day of receiving replacement. • Took 7 days. • Hadley’s mill at stand still the entire time - unbeknown to Baxendale. • Hadley tried to sue for loss of earning etc. • Baxendale argued he was unaware of this and would have delivered sooner had he known. • Decision that Baxendale should be liable for the ordinary / generic damages i.e. those which would be normal for standard breach of contract. • Decided as Baxendale was unaware that mill would be at a standstill not liable of special, consequential or collateral losses - should have been communicated at time of contracting.

Answer 7

Don Jose Rame Yzquierdo y Castaneda

Answer 8

Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co Ltd

Answer 9

Tag line - The Castaneda & LDs Key issue - Liquidated Damages Particulars; • Contract to build and deliver war ships with LDs of £500 per vessel per week. • Contract complete, contract sum paid in full, boats delivered late. • Spanish government submit claim for LDs • Clyde make 3 arguments; (1) LDs could not be applied as warships do not generate profit therefore no loss (2) Had they been delivered on time they would have likely been sunk like the rest of the Spanish Navy during the Spanish-American War (3) Contract sum paid in full meant right to claim LDs had been waived. • Decided (1) LDs did apply and were not a penalty (2) Irrelevant (3) Full payment of contract sum is not a waiver.

Answer 10

New Garage & Motor Co Ltd

Answer 11

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd

Answer 12

Tag line - Sales agreement and LDs Key issue - Liquidated damages - penalty or LDs? Particulars; • Dunlop manufactured and supplied various items to New Garage. • Agreed in contract that New Garage would pay £5 in LDs for every item sold or offered in breach of their agreement. • New Garage breached various times and Dunlop claimed LDs. • New Garage argued these were penalties and not LDs. • Found that Dunlop was correct. • LDs were clarified as follows; LD should be genuine and fair pre-estimate of damage decided upon at the time of making the contract, not at time of breach.

Answer 13

Parking Eye

Answer 14

Tag line - Parking fine: penalty or damage Key issue - Liquidated Damages - Penalty or LD? Particulars; • Parking eye managed car park. • Beavis overstayed by 1 hour despite warning signage - received £85 charge. • Beavis argued unenforceable as charge was a penalty under common law and / or unenforceable under the “Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999”. • Parking Eye won. • Found that Parking Eye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. It was an economic entity which required to be protected (through charge). £85 charge neither extravagant nor unconscionable therefore was not a penalty.

Answer 15

Shepherd Construction Ltd

Answer 16

City Inn Ltd

Answer 17

Tag line - Shared delays Key issue - Concurrent delays / apportionment of delays Particulars • Contract to build new hotel in Bristol. • Architect issued late instructions but failed to issue EOT on grounds that contractor already late. • Found that delay could be shared. • Where there are competing causes but a dominant cause can be established then that cause determines if an EOT can be granted. • Where a dominant cause cannot be established then delay can be apportioned between them.

Answer 18

Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd

Answer 19

Northern Regional Health Authority

Answer 20

Tag line - Power with arbitrator or court Key Issue - Courts Powers Particulars; • Issues arose around lack of instructions for certain sections of the works and the values being certified. • Contract allowed for issues to be taken to arbitrator only. • Only able to go to arbitration after PC. • Decided that contractor unable to take matters to court as the power had been conferred to the arbitrator and could not be held by both the arbitrator and the courts. • This was the basis for the next 14 years until Beaufort Developments (NI Ltd) v Gilbert Ash (NI) Ltd (1998) • Duncan Wallace argued re this for the entire 14 year process

Answer 21

Gilbert Ash (NI) Ltd

Answer 22

Beaufort Developments (NI Ltd)

Answer 23

Tag line - Power with arbitrator and court Key Issues - Courts Powers Particulars; • Overturned Norther Regional Health Authority v Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd (1984) • Practical completion on project was delayed. • Contractor served notice of arbitration. • Employer claimed damages against contractor and architect. • Court could hold power same power as arbiter. • Meant certificates could be challenged right away and did not have to wait for arbitration (starting after PC).

Answer 24

John Mowlem & Co Ltd

Answer 25

Crown Estates Commissioners

Answer 26

Tag line - English broad view on conclusivity Key Issues - Final Certificates (Conclusivity) Particulars; • Mowlem employed to construct development on site of former Chelsea Palace Barracks. • Final cert isssued. • 4 months later further defects issued to Mowlem who argued too late, not their problem as final cert issued. • Decided final cert was conclusive evidence that all works fully complete • Case in English law, takes broad view on Conclusivity of final cert

Answer 27

Firholm Builders Ltd

Answer 28

Tag line - Scottish narrow view on conclusivity Key Issues - Final Certificate (Conclusivity) & Set-Off Particulars; • Main contractor claimed balance of monies due under contract after issue of final certificate • Employer tried to off-set cost of defective works. • Found that unlike in Crown Estates v John Mowlem, final cert does not offer Conclusivity all works are defect free. • Final cert is evidence that architect was reasonably satisfied works were complete however employer could still argue architect ought not to have been satisfied. • Case in Scots law which demonstrates more narrow view on Conclusivity.

Answer 29

Fitzmaurice

Answer 30

Tag line - House with no floor boards Key Issues - True lump sum contract Particulars; • Williams engaged to build a house for Fitzmaurice • Carried out under true lump sum contract • Spec / drawings didn’t detail any floorboards • Bottom of spec Williams had signed memorandum agreeing that house would “be completed and fit for occupation” by a specified date • Williams tried to claim extra for floorboards • Deemed included as house unfit for occupation without floorboards • Would have been a variation if under a SBC

Answer 31

Charles Gray & Son Ltd

Answer 32

Tag line - Common law interim payment Key Issues - Common law no implied right to interim payment Particulars; • Charles Gray house builders • Contracted to sub divide house • Ad hoc contract - not standard building contract • No express terms agreed for interim payment • At end of first month Charles Gray applied for money • Mr Stern refused • Charles Gray sued for payment • Held Charles Gray had no right to interim payment and had failed to carry out material part of contract

Answer 33

Ramsay & Son

Answer 34

Tag line - Common law payment for defective work Key Issues - Right under common law for payment for defective work of contract sum minus cost of remedy Particulars; • Ramsay contracted to carry out mason work for cottage in Arbroath • It was detected late on that works were non compliant • Wrong type of mortar had been used • Cost to remedy (which included demolition of work done) was substantial • Held that Ramsay should be paid contract sum minus cost of remedy • If builder departs from contract loses right to sue for contract sum • Doesn’t gain right to sue for quantum meruit either as employer didn’t agree to pay value for that which he did not order

Answer 35

Official Liquidator of John Frame Ltd

Answer 36

Stirling County Council

Answer 37

Tag line - Materials off site and foreign law Key Issues - Ownership of off site materials Particulars; • John Frame contracted to carry out plumbing works on housing scheme • Stored materials in lock fast store which was not on site (with consent from Stirling CC) • Paid for materials off site • John Frame went into liquidation • Liquidator took ownership of materials • Stirling CC claimed ownership of materials as paid for • Contract said that once goods had been paid for they became ownership of employer • Held by Sheriff Substitute Walker that contract based on some “foreign law” (i.e. English) • Scots law based on Roman law • Contract for services different from contract for sale

Answer 38

Grove Developments Ltd

Answer 39

S&T (UK) Ltd

Answer 40

Tag line - £14m claim and validity of Payless notice Key Issues - Validity of Payless notice and adjudication of application true value Particulars; • S&T contracted for D&B hotel at Heathrow airport • Delays occurred for reasons in dispute • Project went 5 months past Completion Date • S&T submitted app 22 which had an increase of £14m • Grove issued pay notice valuing this at £1.4m • Subsequently issued payless to value of £0 based on LDs being applied for 5 month overrun • Went to adjudication - S&T claimed Payless notice was invalid as did not specify sum due and calculation of same - awarded £14m • Grove appealed - held that (1) Payless notice was valid (2) Grove could commence adjudication to establish true value of app 22 (3) Grove had complied with contract to allow them to apply LDs • S&T have appealed and proceedings to come

Answer 41

GEC Electrical Projects Ltd

Answer 42

Scott Lithgow

Answer 43

Tag line - Naval Jus Quaesitum Tertio Key Issues - Jus Quaesitum Tertio, Scottish exception to privity of contract Particulars; • Jus Quaesitum Tertio - allows 2 parties to make a contract and confer a right on a third party (the tertius) • MOD engaged Scott Lithgow to construct naval vessel • Scott Lithgow subbed domestic services to GEC • Defects found in electrical services • Dispute arose between Scott Lithgow and GEC • In sub contract MOD listed as ultimate beneficiary - (listed as the tertius) • MOD sued for damages due to the defects • Judge Held MOD entitled to sue GEC as they were the tertius and being listed in the contract was sufficient to claim the rights of the tertius

Answer 44

Strathclyde Regional Council

Answer 45

Archivent Sales and Developments Ltd

Answer 46

Tag line - Retention of title clause for ducting Key Issues - Ownership of materials on site Particulars; • Archivent supplied vent ducting to contractor on site owned by SRC • Had a retention of title clause within their Ts&Cs • Contractor applied for and received monies for goods from SRC • Contractor went into liquidation prior to paying Archivent • Archivent exercised retention of title clause - demanded return of goods or payment from SRC for same • Judge held that section 25 (1) of Sale of Goods Act 1979 protected SRC • SRC did not know of existence of retention of title clause - main contractor did not tell them, neither did Archivent • Archivent lost ownership

Answer 47

Carillion Construction Ltd

Answer 48

Blyth & Blyth Ltd

Answer 49

Tag line - Error in novated design Key Issues - Novation Particulars; • D&B contract • B&B carried out initial design for employer • B&B novated to work for Carillion • Then alleged B&B had made error in initial calculations • Carillion lost money due to this error • B&B sued Carillion for unpaid professional fees • Carillion counter claimed for additional costs associated with alleged error • Held that because alleged error was made when B&B were working for employer and that employer suffered no loss, it was Carillion who suffered the loss, B&B were not liable to Carillion at time

Answer 50

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd

Answer 51

Tag line - Bin advertising labels Key Issues - Non acceptance of repudiation Particulars; • Dubious law • WCC firm of advertising printers • Entered into contract for 3 year advertising campaign through representative of McGregor • On same day McGregor found out and contacted WCC to advise there had been an error and they did not wish to enter in contract (there for repudiating) • WCC decided to ignore repudiation and carry out duties of contract • Carry out duties and invoiced for works • Ts&Cs of contract stated that should a payment become overdue then sum of all 3 years services due • WCC sued for all 3 years • WCC won

Answer 52

George Wimpey Ltd

Answer 53

Melville Dundas (in receivership) Ltd

Answer 54

Tag line - Insolvency & contract taking precedence over HGCR Act Key Issues - No further payments due following contractors insolvency Particulars; • GW contracted to build houses • MD sub contractor to GW • GW applied for monies (circa £356k) • Monies due 14 days after application • No with holding notice issued • Further 6 days passed without payment • MD went into receivership • GW determined their employment • Receiver sued for unpaid money • Went from outer house of court of session, to inner house and then to House of Lords • MD case was money was due under HGCR Act • GW case was that under the contract further payment ceases to contractor in event of insolvency, we can’t pay you • 5 judges split - 2 senior judges agreed with GW, 2 junior judges sided with MD, 5th judge sided with senior judges • Statute should have taken precedence but didn’t

Answer 55

Scottish Power PLC

Answer 56

Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd

Answer 57

Tag line - Aqua duct concrete pour and remoteness of damages Key Issues - Remoteness of damages Particulars; • BB constructing aqua duct over Edinburgh city bypass to Grand Union canal • Spec called for single pour of concrete due to it carrying water • Nearby concrete batching plant in Ratho being used for pour • Started pour, batching plant broke down due to loss of mains power • Had to stop pour, flush out what had been done to allow fresh start on 2nd attempt • Additional costs associated with flushing out and re-doing works • BB sued SP for these costs • SP Ts&Cs don’t guarantee uninterrupted supply of electricity • SP defence - we didn’t know you needed an uninterrupted supply for pour, had we known, contingencies could have been put in place (e.g. had engineer present, installed 2nd back up supply, hired a stand by generator) • Damages too remote as per 2nd limb of Hadley v Baxendale

Answer 58

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd

Answer 59

Tag line - The well known Forsyth and his swimming pool - loss of amenity Key Issues - Defective works and damages Particulars; • Ruxley engaged to build swimming pool spec’d to be 7ft 6in deep for diving. • On completion pool was only 6ft deep - swimming pool still functional • Estimated cost of re-building was circa £21k • Forsyth awarded £2.5k for loss of amenity at first pass • On appeal Forsyth committed to rebuild and was awarded full cost for rectification • Ruxley appealed to HoLs • Ruxley won appeal • Where expenditure was out of proportion to the benefit to be obtained then the appropriate level damages should not be the cost of remedying but the value of diminuation of the works

Answer 60

Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation

Answer 61

FG Minter Ltd

Answer 62

Ogilvie Builders Ltd

Answer 63

Tag line - Direct losses and double whammy of loss and expense Key Issues - Finance charges Particulars; • Damages have to be direct loss • Used to be held that finance charges were not a direct consequence of a contractor suffering loss and expense • Used to be held to be indirect losses therefore unrecoverable • Minter put up argument that where a contractor is suffering loss and expense he is getting with a double whammy i.e. loss and expense AND he’s having to finance that loss and expense until he receives his money • He’s either got money in the bank, but less than he should, and missing out on interest • Or he’s in overdraft, further in overdraft due to L&E, and this bears it’s costs • Held that Minter was correct

Answer 64

City of Glasgow District Council

Answer 65

Tag line - Direct nature of losses associated with finance charges Key Issues - Finance charges Particulars; • Ogilvie claimed L&E including finance charges • CoGDC argued finance charges were indirect loss • Held that direct loss was loss arising naturally as per the first limb of Hadley v Baxendale • Acknowledged that delay in payment to contractor may result in them being short of working capital and incurring finance charges

Answer 66

Tarmac Construction Ltd

Answer 67

Redpath Dorman Long Ltd

Answer 68

Tag line - Rosyth warehouse cladding rails attempted set off Key Issues - Set-off Particulars; • RDL doing steel work for warehouse at Rosyth dockyard • Alleged cladding rails installed upside down • RDL submitted interim application • Tarmac slashed value based on their belief that defect could cost them a lot of money going forward • RDL took to court arguing application was payable now, alleged defects had not been agreed or quantified as yet therefore were a future debt that could not be offset • RDL successful

Answer 69

Wimpey Construction UK Ltd

Answer 70

Scottish Special Housing Association

Answer 71

Tag line - Insurance for negligent fire Key Issues - Insruance Particulars; • Wimpey contracted to carry out works in existing building • SSHA had not insured building - should have under contract but had not • Wimpey allegedly negligently set fire to the existing building • SSHA argued that because Wimpey had negligently set fire to the property they should be for damage • Wimpey argued contract was clear - if there was a fire then employers insurers were liable; specified peril didn’t say non negligent fire, just fire, therefore covered any fire • Wimpey successful

Answer 72

James Thomson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd

Answer 73

British Telecommunications PLC

Answer 74

Tag line - Domestic sub and negligent fire Key Issues - Insurance Particulars; • BT engaged Melville Dundas to works at Dial House in Glasgow • JT&S were domestic sub contractor to MD • Working in roof top plant room • Allegedly negligently set fire • BT sued JT&S for damages in delict as they were not in contract with them • BT argued domestic sub contractor owes duty of care to the building owner • Joint names insurance policy between BT & MD in place • JT&S argued the same as SSHA v Wimpey - it was undefined fire • BT argued not the case - only people who had been protected in SSHA v Wimpey were the main contractor and nominated sub contractor, not domestic subs • BT lost first two times • BT won in House of Lords (5-0) • JCT changed after this to protect domestic sub contractors

Answer 75

Heating Enterprises (Aberdeen) Ltd

Answer 76

Aberdeen Harbour Board

Answer 77

Tag line - Negligent fire in tenants home Key Issues - Insurance - Employer doesn’t have to indemnify contractor from claims from 3rd parties Particulars; • HE had contract with tenant in building owned by AHB • HE allegedly set fire to property • Tenant wasn’t owner - was the employer however • Building owner (AHB) sued HE • AHB won • Held that employer has no obligation to indemnify the contractor against claims by 3rd parties • Structures referred to in building contract were only those occupied by the tenant in which they had an incurable interest • Fire damage to other areas owned by AHB were not insured under building contract

Answer 78

Tag line - Delict: Snail in a bottle Key Issues - Delict, duty of care Particulars; • Case lay the foundation for law of negligence in delict • Mrs Donoghue bought an iced drink by her friend in Mr Minchella’s cafe in Paisley • Ginger beer served in dark, opaque bottle • Drank the half that had been in her glass, poured out other half and allegedly decomposing body of snail fell out of bottle • Caused Mrs Donoghue to allegedly fall ill • As friend had bought drink Mrs Donoghue was neither in contract with Mr Minchella or drink manufacturer Mr Stevenson • Sued Mr Stevenson and case eventually went to HoL • Lord Atkin espoused the neighbour principle • Should take reasonable care to avoid harm to your neighbour • Begged question who is your “neighbour” • Neighbour = persons who are closely and directly affected by act that they ought to reasonably be in contemplation as being affected by actions or inactions

Answer 79

Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd

Answer 80

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd

Answer 81

Tag line - Delict: Loss of power to smelting plant Key Issues - Pure economic loss Particulars; • Martin working on road outside of factory • Loss of power to factory due to electrical supply being accidentally severed • Smelt ongoing at the time • Smelt had to be stopped and poured out so as not to damage crucible in solidifying • Delay to four following smelts being carried out • Breached duty of care to neighbour • Court agreed loss with current smelt however subsequent smelts were pure economic loss which could not be recovered

Answer 82

Bognor Regis DC

Answer 83

Tag line - Delict: Defective house foundations on former rubbish tip Key Issues - Defective buildings Particulars; • Mrs Dutton 2nd owner of house therefore never in contract with builder or local authority • House built on site of former rubbish tip • Designer took cognisance of low load bearing capacity of ground and designed external foundations to external walls to accommodate this • Didn’t extend this to internal to internal walls • Foundations had been inspected and passed by Bognor Regis local authority • Internal walls and stairs showed signed of cracking due to foundations failing • Held that Bognor Regis owed duty of care and therefore liable to subsequent owners • Set a precedent

Answer 84

Merton LBC

Answer 85

Tag line - Delict: Defective London clay foundations Key Issues - Defective buildings Particulars; • Similar to Dutton V Bognor Regis • Anns 2nd owner of property • Foundations built utilising London clay which has problem of expanding and contracting based on moisture content • Foundations had been inspected and approved by Merton LBC • Cracks began to appear in structure • Complex structure principle was the difference between Dutton and Anns • Argued a building is a complex structure - not a single entity - made up of lots of elements and if one element is defective then it damages the other elements (other property) • With this in mind it the falls under Donoghue v Stevenson - it is damage to other property therefore not pure economic loss

Answer 86

The Veitchi Co Ltd

Answer 87

Junior Books

Answer 88

Tag line - Delict: VeitchiFlor oddball success in pure economic loss due to proximity Key Issues - Pure economic loss Particulars; • Veitchi were specialist nominated sub contractor to Ogilvie • Veitchi were well aware of nature of Junior Books business, the purpose for the floor and the part it played in their operations • Veitchi specialised in production of the materials required • Veitchi designed and installed seamless floor • Floor began to crack • Junior Books took risky step of suing Veitchi in delict for pure economic loss • Loss was cost to replace and consequential losses while the works took place • HoL held that Veitchi were liable due to special relationship between Junior Books and Veitchi which was akin to being in contract • Decided on proximity • Junior Books relied on Veitchi (being the experts) • PROXIMITY AND RELIANCE • Good law only on the facts of the case

Answer 89

Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co

Answer 90

Peabody Donation Fund (Governors of)

Answer 91

Tag line - Delict: Defective drainage different from Dutton & Anns Key Issues - Duty of Care Particulars; • Peabody developer for 245 houses • Byelaws required drains to be laid to satisfaction of local authority • Drains specified to have flexible joints so as to suit London clay • LA inspector informally agreed with architect’s site supervisor that joints could be rigid • LA inspector approved drainage install • Drainage system failed • Had to be reconstructed - 3 year delay • HoL held no duty on local authority to exercise their statutory power so as to prevent Peabody to contravene the statutory requirements - all down to Lindsay Parkinson • Different to Dutton & Anns

Answer 92

Pilkington Glass Ltd

Answer 93

Simaan General Contracting Co

Answer 94

Tag line - Offensive glass and economic loss Key Issues - Pure economic loss Particulars; • Simaan were main contractor on palace construction in Abu Dhabi to be clad in glass • Pilkington suppliers of tinted glazing • Customs in Abu Dhabi meant that certain colour were offensive, one being the colour red • Glass to be slight shade of green • Certain times of year the glass looked red • Simaan sued Pilkington • Held that this was pure economic loss • Different from Veitchi as there was no reliance on Pilkington, they were purely the supplier

Answer 95

Church Commissioners

Answer 96

D&F Estates Ltd

Answer 97

Tag line - Delict: Defective plaster that didn’t cause harm Key Issues - Defective building Particulars; • Church commissioners owned block of flats • Sub contracted plaster work which turned out to be defective • D&F on holiday - returned and found plaster had fallen from ceiling • No physical harm as no one had been in property • Wasn’t damage to other property - was damage to thing in itself • D&F didn’t have contract with builder or plaster sub contractor • Sued developer on basis they had a duty of care • Held that they did not have a duty of care to prevent pure economic loss

Answer 98

Phoenix Preservation Ltd

Answer 99

Parkhead Housing Association

Answer 100

Tag line - Delict: Key Issues - Duty of care ``` Particulars; • Phoenix installed defective DPC • Caused damp and dry rot to timber joists • Had to be taken out and re-done • PHA sued Phoenix • Proof before answer • Held that that there was proximity and reliance (as with Junior Books) and PHA won • Had obligation of care ```

Answer 101

Brentwood DC

Answer 102

Tag line - Delict: Defective foundations and over turning of Anns Key Issues - Defective buildings Particulars; • Same as Anns - defective foundations approved by local authority • Owner unable to afford cost of repair • Sold house for £35k less than value if foundations were sound • Murphy sued local authority • Went to HoLs before 7 judges • Over turned principles of Anns (7-0) • Held that a building is a single indivisible unit and rubbished complex structure argument • Held that LA or builder owed no duty of care for pure economic loss of damage to thing itself • This is inline with current law

Answer 103

Holland Hannen & Cubitts Ltd

Answer 104

Tag line - Delict: Loss of power to factory and only pure economic loss (“Holland, Hannen & some other fucker”) Key Issues - Pure Economic Loss Particulars; • Similar to Spartan Steel • HH&C accidentally severed elec cable • Factory shut down due to loss of power • No ongoing processes at the time so no direct loss, only consequential loss • Pure economic loss therefore unrecoverable

Answer 105

A&J Stephen (Builders) Ltd

Answer 106

Tag line - Delict: Successful pure economic loss garage fire Key Issues - Pure economic loss Particulars; • A&J building house with integral garage • Building regs called for fire stopping between garage and house • Stevenson was 2nd owner of house • Fire started in garage and spread to house • Sued for pure economic loss (damage to thing itself) • Proof before answer • Completion certificate had been issued by local building authority giving false representation that house built to regs • Owners relied on the completion cert which amounted to special relationship

Answer 107

(2) Anns v Merton - confirmed Dutton (3) Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson - started process of departure from Dutton & Anns (4) Murphy v Brentwood - completely overturned Anns

Answer 108

(2) Dynamco v Holland Hannen & Cubitts