Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.


  • Presentation
  • Question
  • Answer

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, the House of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed to sue the solicitor for the loss of an intended legacy. As such, [...]. Lord Goff stated:

In my opinion, therefore, your Lordship’s House should in cases such as these extend to the intended beneficiary a remedy under the Hedley Byrne principle by holding that the assumption of responsibility by the solicitor towards his client should be held in law to extend to the intended beneficiary who (as the solicitor can reasonably foresee) may as a result of the solicitor’s negligence, be deprived of his intended legacy in circumstances in which neither the testator nor his estate will have a remedy against the solicitor.

Answer
third parties were given a right of action

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, the House of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed to sue the solicitor for the loss of an intended legacy. As such, [...]. Lord Goff stated:

In my opinion, therefore, your Lordship’s House should in cases such as these extend to the intended beneficiary a remedy under the Hedley Byrne principle by holding that the assumption of responsibility by the solicitor towards his client should be held in law to extend to the intended beneficiary who (as the solicitor can reasonably foresee) may as a result of the solicitor’s negligence, be deprived of his intended legacy in circumstances in which neither the testator nor his estate will have a remedy against the solicitor.

Answer
?

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207, the House of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed to sue the solicitor for the loss of an intended legacy. As such, [...]. Lord Goff stated:

In my opinion, therefore, your Lordship’s House should in cases such as these extend to the intended beneficiary a remedy under the Hedley Byrne principle by holding that the assumption of responsibility by the solicitor towards his client should be held in law to extend to the intended beneficiary who (as the solicitor can reasonably foresee) may as a result of the solicitor’s negligence, be deprived of his intended legacy in circumstances in which neither the testator nor his estate will have a remedy against the solicitor.

Answer
third parties were given a right of action
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
use of Lords, following on from the decision in Ross v Caunters, held that solicitors drawing up a will owe a duty of care to the testator’s beneficiaries who should be allowed to sue the solicitor for the loss of an intended legacy. As such, <span>third parties were given a right of action. Lord Goff stated: In my opinion, therefore, your Lordship’s House should in cases such as these extend to the intended beneficiary a remedy under the Hedley Byrne principl

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions

Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.