Pure Economic Loss From Defective Goods And Structures

Question 0

Minchillo v Ford

Answer 0

Plaintiff bought a defective truck for work purposes. No personal injury suffered but was unable to recover in tort.

The issue is mainly about quality; Defective goods are inherently defective and the contract terms between manufacturer and retailer cannot be known. Concept that you get what you pay for; purchasing the inherent qualities.

Inappropriate for tort to intervene in a contract issue.

If the good was not defective but dangerous then the action lies elsewhere; the manufacturer has assumed a responsibility to make things that do not harm people.

Question 1

Defective GOODS; general

Answer 1

There generally won’t be a duty found in tort as consumer protection laws have replaced the common law (always look tot statute first)

S 51-59; any ‘good’ so long as it is sold in trade or commerce and bought by a consumer (no application if good is given to you).

Question 2

Defective STRUCTURES; general

Answer 2

There is more scope to recover in a case of pure economic loss from defective structures.

Question 3

Bryan v Maloney (1995)

Answer 3

Appellent who was a builder entered into contract with ‘A’ to build a house.

‘A’ sold house to ‘B’, who then sells house to the plaintiff. The ground suffered seasonal change (issue; time taken for damage to manifest) for causes PEL as a result. (‘A’ or builder not in contract with the plaintiff.)

Does the builder owe a duty of care to the ultimate purchaser?

Yes;

• no exemption of liability between builder and A.
• permanent dwelling house, significant investment
• no opportunity for subsequent purchasers to inspect building.
• appropriate to owe a duty of care

(Uses language of proximity (case before Perre v Apand) but principles still relevant)