Economic Loss Flashcards
Initial Case for Pure Economic Loss
Hedley Byrne
Negligent Misrep Case
Hercules Management
Hercules Proximity - Misrep
- The D reasonably foreseen that the P would rely on his rep; and
2) Reliance would be reasonable if:
a) D had a financial interest in the transaction
b) D was a professional
c) Information was given in course of business
d) info given deliberately and NOT on a social occasion
e) Info was given in response to a specific request
Hercules Policy - Misrep
a) D knows P or class of Ps who will rely on the statement; and
b) the statement was used for precisely the purpose intended.
c) May be limited to negligent use of words - Weller v. Foot and Mouth
Goods or Structures Case
Wpg. Condo v. Bird Const.
Bird Const Proximity - Goods/Structures
Foreseeable that defect would damage or harm
Bird Policy - Goods/Structures
Limited to building’s owner and cost of making it SAFE
- LaForest saus also applies to Chattles
- Only to cases of substantial danger
Performance of a service Case
Ross v. Caunters / BDC Hofstrand / contra Freeman v. Sutter
Ross Proximity - Service
Clear that it could lead to a loss to those affected.
Ross Policy - Service
Careful balance. Letting people sue who haven’t been provided with a service is troubling. On other hand, letting wills lawyers off every time just because clients are dead also isn’t good
BDC Proximity - Service
Have to actually know of the P’s existence
BDC Policy - Service
Not discussed - fails at Prox.
Freeman Test- Service
- Not Anns
- Said that doctor’s duty was only to patient.
Relational Case
Bow Valley Husky
Bow Valley Proximity - Relational
- Rejects using proximity to control indeterminate liability per McLachlin in CNR
