Tort of Negligence
GROUP ASSIGNMENT 8: Tort of Negligence
Issue 1: Chew’s Losses - $300,000, Anxiety, Medical bills and the Closure of his stall.
Suing Chew under misrepresentation
A special relationship between Chew and Don [Hedley Byrne v Heller]
Representor has reasonable grounds to believe his statement was true.
Is a term; as Chew would not invest in the bonds if not for Don’s words.
Sue for negligent misrepresentation (Using “But-for” test to assess damages)
Suing under the Tort of Negligence, Chew has to prove:
Duty of Care owed to Chew by Don - Factual Foreseeability, proximity checked
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) - Negligent misstatement results economic loss
Skill & Expertise of Don
Don knows/ought to know that Chew will rely on the statement
Don assumes responsibility for statement (Asking him to come by his bank to set up investment account)
Breach of duty of Care - Don reasonably expected to check the company as a professional, and Breach caused damage suffered by Chew
“But-for” test - $300k damage.
Breach is the material contribution to risk of health damage - Nervous Shock but it is not within the foreseeability that Chew would accidentally poison his customers and get a heart failure.
Assessing damage, we evaluate the remoteness of the damages. Is $300k too remote? No. Medical bills? No, not too remote considering the special circumstances (use eggshell) for Chew. But closure of stall is not claimable as it is too remote.
Don is likely to raise the Volenti Non Fit Injuria in the investment bond. But chew shown no full knowledge of the risks and consents. (Section 2 UCTA) and mentions he has no knowledge of stocks.
Resulting in Chew being able to sue and claim damages for his medical bills and loss through investment.
Issue 2: Bree can sue Coco Bank under the tort of negligence.
Bree to prove:
Duty of Care owed to Bree by Coco Bank
Spandeck Test - Negligent act causing economical damage
Factual Foreseeability - Arguably foreseeable as
Issue 1: Chew’s Losses - $300,000, Anxiety, Medical bills and the Closure of his stall.
Suing Chew under misrepresentation
A special relationship between Chew and Don [Hedley Byrne v Heller]
Representor has reasonable grounds to believe his statement was true.
Is a term; as Chew would not invest in the bonds if not for Don’s words.
Sue for negligent misrepresentation (Using “But-for” test to assess damages)
Suing under the Tort of Negligence, Chew has to prove:
Duty of Care owed to Chew by Don - Factual Foreseeability, proximity checked
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) - Negligent misstatement results economic loss
Skill & Expertise of Don
Don knows/ought to know that Chew will rely on the statement
Don assumes responsibility for statement (Asking him to come by his bank to set up investment account)
Breach of duty of Care - Don reasonably expected to check the company as a professional, and Breach caused damage suffered by Chew
“But-for” test - $300k damage.
Breach is the material contribution to risk of health damage - Nervous Shock but it is not within the foreseeability that Chew would accidentally poison his customers and get a heart failure.
Assessing damage, we evaluate the remoteness of the damages. Is $300k too remote? No. Medical bills? No, not too remote considering the special circumstances (use eggshell) for Chew. But closure of stall is not claimable as it is too remote.
Don is likely to raise the Volenti Non Fit Injuria in the investment bond. But chew shown no full knowledge of the risks and consents. (Section 2 UCTA) and mentions he has no knowledge of stocks.
Resulting in Chew being able to sue and claim damages for his medical bills and loss through investment.
Issue 2: Bree can sue Coco Bank under the tort of negligence.
Bree to prove:
Duty of Care owed to Bree by Coco Bank
Spandeck Test - Negligent act causing economical damage
Factual Foreseeability - Arguably foreseeable as