StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Business Law and Negligent Misstatement - Case Study Example

Summary
The paper "Business Law and Negligent Misstatement" states that Max could defend himself from the accusation of a negligent misstatement as he may have contained a disclaimer. In Hedley, a statement of caution may exempt a plaintiff from liability for negligent misstatement…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER92.4% of users find it useful

Extract of sample "Business Law and Negligent Misstatement"

Business Law Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecture Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 11th September 2012 Words count: 2000 Introduction Negligence is a tort that is meant to compensate people who have suffered due to the slack judgment of others. It exists in law to make sure people do not neglect the duty of care they have towards their neighbors in their actions and omissions. Max can be said to have owed Hope a duty of care while advising her about the viability of Bruno’s as an investment opportunity. By urging Charlie to purchase the restaurant without being objective about the prospects of its success Charlie may have broken the duty of care owed to Charlie thus he can be said to have acted negligently. This essay analyzes the facts of the case and establishes the legal issue they raise. Secondly it establishes the rules and principles that can be used to decide the cases in a court of law. Thirdly, it applies the rules in the Case to Max and Harley’s cases to establish it is actionable. In the conclusion it is established that Max owed Charlie a duty of care but his breach of the duty cannot be proved to be the cause of Charlie’s loss. Legal Issue in the Case study To establish the Legal issues in any case a person has to carefully analyze the facts of the case to unearth the issue (s). In this case the relevant facts are; a) Max is Charlie’s friend. b) Charlie is looking to invest in a restaurant but has no experience in running or owning a restaurant. c) Max’s finds a restaurant called Bruno’s on King’s Avenue which appears to be doing brisk business. d) Next day he expresses his intention to buy the restaurant to Max who endorses with the following statement “Bruno’s is a very successful restaurant; you are almost guaranteed to make a profit in the first 12 months” e) Charlie makes up his mind to purchase the restaurant with his Brother Harley. f) A year later the business is collapsing and revenues continue declining. From the case it can be urged that Max acted negligently in endorsing the purchase of Bruno’s by presenting an overly positive outlook to Charlie. In law where reliance on ones words causes person harm the person is said to have committed a tort of negligent misstatement1. The law Negligent misstatement is categorized in Negligence which also includes defective structures and defective products. Negligence is defined as ignoring ones duty to ensure others are not harmed by ones actions or omissions. For Charlie’s and/or Harley’s case to be actionable they would have to prove all the elements of negligence against Charlie’s conduct. The elements of Negligence are; a) Does the plaintiff owes a duty of care to the defendant in relevance to the negligent action or omission? b) Did the plaintiff breach the duty of care? c) Did the breach of duty cause harm to the defendant. In negligent misstatement a defendant also has to prove additional elements as words are distinctly different from actions when it comes to causing harm. The case of Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87 which developed on the ideas of negligent misstatement espoused by Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1963] UKHL 4; (1964) AC 465 2by establishing five elements that a plaintiff must prove. These elements are3: a) A special relationship has to exist for a duty of care to arise. b) The statement must lack truth, accuracy and or be misleading. c) The plaintiff must have acted negligent in making the statement. d) The person receiving the advice/information must have relied on the misstatement. e) The person must have been harmed as a result of relying on the misstatement. Although the elements were set out in a ruling at the supreme court of Canada they have also been used in several Australian cases to prove negligent misstatement. Secondly, these elements are also very relevant while proving negligent misstatement in Australia as they only develop the test set out in Hedley4. Application For Charlie and/or Harley to prove that Max was guilty of negligent misstatement they have to prove each of the elements listed above. The first element to be proved is the question of whether a special relationship existed between Max and Charlie or Max and Harley. The element of a special relationship is easy to prove as courts do not set the bar of special relationships is not high in negligent misstatement. In Hedley the case that established liability for misleading words a special relationship only has to be sufficiently proximate for a duty of care to arise5. In Donoghue v Stevenson special relationships are with any person where your actions or omissions may harm6. In the case Max’s friendship with Charlie is sufficiently proximate for Max to owe Charlie a duty of care while advising him on whether Bruno’s was a good investment opportunity. However, the relationship between Harley and Max was not sufficiently proximate for Max to owe him a duty of care as regards the advice. Therefore, Harley case would fail at this point as it is impossible for him to prove The second element involves proving whether the statement made by Max lacked truth, accuracy and was misleading. When Charlie asked Max about Bruno’s max asserted that the restaurant was very successful and he was almost guaranteed to make a profit in the first 12 months. This statement is too optimistic and did not represent the actual financial position of the restaurant as revenue dropped after a year instead of realizing the profits Max had promised. The third element that Charlie has to prove is whether Max acted negligently while advising him about the investment. This would be a question of whether Max could have foreseen that his advice would lead Charlie into financial ruin. In Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) [1981] HCA 59; (1981) 150 CLR 225 (28 October 1981) the council was held liable for negligent misstatement as they possessed the knowledge about the road widening proposal and if they had not acted negligently it’s would not have led to a loss to the defendant7. Max having run a restaurant for several years was in a position to give accurate information about investing in a restaurant around the same area as his own. He was also aware that Charlie knew nothing about the restaurant business and thus would most probably use his advice. The fourth element Charlie would also have to prove in an action of negligent misstatement is that he relied on Max’s bad or inaccurate advice in purchasing Bruno’s. Before consulting Max it is clear that Charlie was already impressed by the restaurant having many customers. He went to Max to hear an expert’s opinion and Max endorsed the restaurant as a good performer and thus Charlie made his final decision to purchase Bruno’s based on the advice of Max. The final element that Charlie would have to prove to get a decision against Charlie is that his reliance on the advice of Max was the cause of his loss. This element would be hard to prove for Charlie as there are two competing views of the cause of his loss. First, it may be said Bruno’s was not performing as well as Max had asserted and thus Max had misled Charlie in making the decision to invest in the restaurant. Alternatively, it can also be urged that since Charlie had no experience of running a restaurant business he had mismanaged the business and thus caused it to go into bankruptcy. Max could also defend himself from the accusation of negligent misstatement as his may have contained a disclaimer. In Hedley a statement of caution may exempt a plaintiff from liability for negligent misstatement. In his advice Max told Charlie that he was almost guaranteed to make a profit in 12 months. Almost in the context may mean that profit was not a certainty and therefore it could constitute a disclaimer. Conclusion It is evident from that it is not possible for Charlie to satisfactorily fulfill all the elements needed to find Max liable for negligent misstatement. As negligent misstatement is a category of negligence all the element of negligence must also be present, these are; a) does the plaintiff owes a duty of care to the defendant in relevance to the negligent action or omission? b) Did the plaintiff breach the duty of care? c) Did the breach of duty cause harm to the defendant. Causation the third of the elements of negligence cannot be proved in this case as it cannot be established whether the bankruptcy of the business due to reliance on Max’s advice or the inexperience of Max in running the business. Harley action against Max is farfetched as there was no proximal relationship between them as their contact is through Charlie his brother. Therefore Charlie’s and/or Harley case against Harley is not actionable under the tort of negligent misstatement. Bibliography A. Article/Book/Reports Christian Witting, ‘Duty of Care: An Analytical Approach’ (2005) 25 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 33. Daniel More, ‘The Boundaries of Negligence’ (2003) 4 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 339-347 B. Others Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners Ltd. [1963] UKHL 4; (1964) AC 465 Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87 Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 1) [1981] HCA 59; (1981) 150 CLR 225 (28 October 1981) Read More

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Business Law and Negligent Misstatement

Negligent Misstatement

This essay "negligent misstatement" talks about potential liability for negligent misstatement falls under the exceptional category of tort where negligence for pure economic loss can incur liability.... The duty arises under the tort of negligent misstatement only if there is a special relationship between Winston and the potential claimant.... It was established in Hedley Byrne v Heller that liability for negligent misstatement will arise where a party seeks information or advice from another on the basis of trust that the other party would use care and knew that the information or advice would be relied upon upon upon on....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay

The Statement: In Tort Law, Pure Economic Loss is Never Recoverable in an Action for Negligence

Negligence in tort law may be in respect of negligence in the duty of care or negligent misstatement which may result in economic loss to a third party.... negligent misstatement refers to the statement of a fact, which is carelessly made and is relied on by another party to their detriment.... The extent of liability in the case of negligent misstatement varies from case to case and the affected person can claim for the economic loss even if there is no contractual or fiduciary relationship exists between the parties....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay

Law for Business Case Study

In respect of negligent misstatement the important case that can be cited is Caparo v.... A further important authority in respect of negligent misstatement is that of Hedley Byrne v.... Heller2 wherein it was construed by the courts that there was no negligent misstatement on the basis that the facts portrayed that there had been disclaimer within the remarks that is the use of the term without responsibility which led to the possibility of a duty of care to be extinguished....
5 Pages (1250 words) Case Study

Scope of Liability for Negligent Misstatement by Professionals

Scope of Liability for negligent misstatement by Professionals Customer Inserts Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Outline 1.... Scope of Liability for negligent misstatement 2.... A statement is referred to as a negligent misstatement if it is a representation of fact, recklessly made and on which the claimant relied on to his detriment.... In the past cases for negligent misstatement were wound up with cases for pure economic loss....
8 Pages (2000 words) Assignment

A Brian v Derek - Negligent Misstatement Resulting in Economic Loss

The paper "A Brian v Derek - negligent misstatement Resulting in Economic Loss " states that generally, the Court of Appeal allowed the claim for the physical damage, both to the machinery and the melt and also for the loss of profit on the current melt.... Derek/Alan – relating to Brian's purchase of van prima facie pertains to an area of 'pure' economic loss due to negligent misstatement, resulting in tortious liability under common law.... he common law imposes liability in tort upon persons who make misstatements to others; however, only if the misstatement is made fraudulently or negligently when there is a duty to take care....
10 Pages (2500 words) Case Study

Liability for Negligent Misstatement

The paper "Liability for negligent misstatement" describes that there is where policy comes in to determine possible courses of action.... It has been said that the critical point regarding liability for negligent misstatement is not the expertise of the adviser, but the dual requirements of assumption of responsibility by the adviser and reasonable reliance upon that advice by the other party.... Changes have been happening in the last decade in Australian negligence law, both concerning negligent advice and negligence causing pure economic loss (Baker and Manderson 2001)....
9 Pages (2250 words) Essay

Scope of Liability for Negligent Misstatement by Professionals

A statement is referred to as a negligent misstatement if it is.... The paper "Scope of Liability for negligent misstatement by Professionals" is a great example of a finance and accounting essay.... The paper "Scope of Liability for negligent misstatement by Professionals" is a great example of a finance and accounting essay.... A statement is referred to as a negligent misstatement if it is a representation of fact, recklessly made and on which the claimant relied on to his detriment....
9 Pages (2250 words) Essay

Tort of Negligence Platform to Base Charlie and Harley Case against Max

The tort of negligent misstatement was brought about by the existence of a duty of care as espoused in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 in a situation where one party gives information that can cause harm to another party.... From this original principle, negligence has developed into three division; negligent misstatement, defective structure and defective products.... However, it is still necessary for a plaintiff to satisfy the three elements of negligence for them to succeed in negligent misstatement action....
6 Pages (1500 words) Case Study
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us