New Deck

Question 1

What case established that liability can run concurrently in both contract and tort

Answer 1

Henderson v Merrett

Question 2

Definition of strict liability

Answer 2

Liability without proof of fault

Question 3

How do Hedley Byrne and Caparo relate to each other?

Answer 3

Both pure economic loss. Hedley Byrne established that pure economic loss can be recoverable for negligent misstatement and introduced the test, Caparo (as well as introducing the 3 stage test for tort in general) went to the scope of the assumption of responsibility.

Question 4

Definition / description of the Consumer Protection Act 1987

Answer 4

An Act construed in accordance with the 1985 EU Directive imposing strict liability for defective products on manufacturers

Question 5

What damage gives rise to liability under the CPA 1987

Answer 5

S5 - Consequential loss over £275, death, personal injury

Question 6

Cases where there was knowledge of reasonable reliance, so a Hedley Byrne duty of care arose

Answer 6

Smith v Eric S Bush, Junior Books

Question 7

Definition of pure economic loss

Answer 7

“Damage to the pocket”: any loss not consequential upon the tort

Question 8

Burden of proof under CPA 1987

Answer 8

Burden is on the claimant

Question 9

What is a defect under the CPA 1987

Answer 9

S3 - Anything falling short of what the public are generally entitled to expect

Question 10

What is the 3 part test in Caparo and who did the owe a duty of care to in regards to pure economic loss

Answer 10

1. Harm was reasonably forseeable, 2. proximity, 3. Fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. Duty was owed to existing shareholders, but not to the world at large (inc prospective purchasers). Look to the purpose of the statement.

Question 11

Authority for the rule that pure economic loss is not recoverable in tort

Answer 11

Cattle v Stockton

Question 12

Cases where a special relaionship, akin to contract meant that there was a Hedley Byrne duty of care

Answer 12

Hedley Byrne, Junior Books

Question 13

Most important (likely to come up) defences under the CPA 1987

Answer 13

S4 - Development risks, S6 - Contributory negligence

Question 14

The case which established an exception to the rule that pure economic loss isn’t recoverable

Answer 14

Hedley Byrne v Heller: Pure economic loss recoverable for negligent misstatement subject to 3-part test

Question 15

Authority that in certain cases, Hedley Byrne liability can arise in a social context

Answer 15

Chaudhury v Prabhakar

Question 16

Who can sue under the CPA1987

Answer 16

Anyone who can prove damage and causation (must be inferred from the act)

Question 17

The case that shows that pure economic loss can be recoverable for negligent failure to act

Answer 17

White v Jones

Question 18

A case where there was no voluntary assumption of responsibility, so no Hedley-Byrne duty of care arose

Answer 18

Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank

Question 19

Case which illustrates the difference between consequential loss and pure economic loss

Answer 19

Spartan Steel v Martin: They could recover for the metal damaged by the interrupted burn, but not for the money they would have made if they had been able to do the extra burns if the power hadn’t been cut

Question 20

The case that shows that defects of quality ARE pure economic loss and therefore not recoverable in tort

Answer 20

Murphy v Brentwood (overruled Anns v Merton) dismissed the complex structures reasoning in D&F Estates v Church Commissioners for England

Question 21

The test in Hedley Byrne

Answer 21

1. (Voluntary) assumption of responsibility; 2. Special relationship; 3. Knowledge of reliance

Question 22

Who can be sued under the CPA 1987

Answer 22

S2 - Manufacturers, importers from outside of the EU, whitelabellers

Question 23

Which case suggested the possibility of the complex structures argument

Answer 23

D&F Estates v Church commissioners for England