Concurrent LiabilityThe case of Robinson -v- P E Jones (Contractors) Ltd 2011 EWCA Civ 9 deals with the issue of tortious liability operating concurrent to contractual liability. The courts traditionally appear at the view that the accurate part of tort is to compensate these who have created a loss…read far more. The mere truth that the parties have dealt with a matter expressly in their contract does not imply that they intended to exclude the correct to sue in tort. Claims for defective or poorly performed building perform have in the previous been commonly created each in contract and below the general law of tort” (or delict” as it is recognized in Scotland) which imposes liability for particular negligent acts. Concurrent tortious liability can occasionally supply an advantage over contractual liability.

The court assumed that parties contract on the basis that their liability will be restricted to harm of such sort … Read the rest >>>

Concurrent LiabilityLiability in tort might arise separately but will sit alongside a contractual suitable (hence concurrent). In Henderson v. Merrett , Lord Goff laid down the present English position on concurrent liability, by holding that the existence of a contract involving parties does not necessarily exclude the concurrent existence of liability in tort. Here, the plaintiff could seek to sue concurrently or alternatively in tort to safe some advantage certain to the law of tort (such as a much more generous limitation period) (BG Checo, para 19).

The courts traditionally look at the view that the true role of tort is to compensate those who have made a loss…read a lot more. The mere truth that the parties have dealt with a matter expressly in their contract does not mean that they intended to exclude the proper to sue in tort. Claims for defective or poorly performed building operate have in … Read the rest >>>

Concurrent LiabilityLord Justice Jackson has referred to as on the government to generate a single core limitation regime” for all claims in contract and tort, as advisable by the Law Commission. A contract may well expressly specify a duty which can give rise to a separate and actionable breach of contract. The initial and foremost question really should be regardless of whether there is a specific contractual duty designed by an express term of the contract which is co-extensive with the frequent law duty of care which the representee alleges the representor has breached. Hence, whether the complete agreement clause excludes Intrawest from liability for negligent misrepresentation is not very easily answered. By contrast, tortious claims permit all losses to be recovered which are reasonably foreseeable at the time the tort occurred.

In Henderson v. Merrett , Lord Goff laid down the present English position on concurrent liability, by holding that … Read the rest >>>

Concurrent LiabilityOne particular frequently hears the term ‘joint tortfeasors’ in relation to claims involving a number of defendants. The question was no matter whether a contractor, having entered into a contract with its employer, could owe a duty of care in tort not to bring about financial loss and hence be liable to the employer for a longer limitation period At the time of Murphy v Brentwood, most individuals would most likely have answered no” to the question and (save for individual injury or harm to other property) it seemed the law of tort was dead as regards developing contracts.

Section five and section two of the Limitation Act 1980 state that the limitation period for an action in basic contract or tort, respectively, is six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued”. The final crucial distinction is that the applicability of statutes relating to contribution and … Read the rest >>>

Concurrent LiabilityIn Component II of this post, I discuss negligent tort liability under the CISG in the context of selection-of-law theories, informed by application of Articles 4 and 5 of the CISG. The usual rule in relation to clauses excluding liability is that if liability can be primarily based on negligence or on some other ground, and if the clause does not specifically state that liability for negligence is excluded, then liability for negligence is not excluded. The second possible lead to of action in contract is breach of a term implied by statute, namely section 13 of the Provide of Goods and Solutions Act 1982. This implies not providing the plaintiff compensation for any losses not related to the misrepresentation, but resulting from such elements as the plaintiff’s own poor overall performance, or marketplace or other forces that are a regular element of company transactions.

The essential issues are (1) … Read the rest >>>