In Weller & Co v Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute [1965] 3 All ER 560 the plaintiff was an agricultural auction house that brought a claim for loss of profits against the defendant Institute. The defendants had negligently released the foot and mouth virus and infected local cattle, resulting in a cattle movement ban and the cancellation of local auctions. The claim was unsuccessful as [...]. The plaintiff had suffered no damage to their own property. Their losses flowed from damage to cattle owned by the local farmers. Of course, if one of the farmers had claimed for loss of profits by reason of not being able to sell an infected cow the claim would have succeeded as that would have been economic loss consequent on physical damage to property.
Answer
it was for pure economic loss
Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Weller & Co v Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute [1965] 3 All ER 560 the plaintiff was an agricultural auction house that brought a claim for loss of profits against the defendant Institute. The defendants had negligently released the foot and mouth virus and infected local cattle, resulting in a cattle movement ban and the cancellation of local auctions. The claim was unsuccessful as [...]. The plaintiff had suffered no damage to their own property. Their losses flowed from damage to cattle owned by the local farmers. Of course, if one of the farmers had claimed for loss of profits by reason of not being able to sell an infected cow the claim would have succeeded as that would have been economic loss consequent on physical damage to property.
Answer
?
Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Weller & Co v Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute [1965] 3 All ER 560 the plaintiff was an agricultural auction house that brought a claim for loss of profits against the defendant Institute. The defendants had negligently released the foot and mouth virus and infected local cattle, resulting in a cattle movement ban and the cancellation of local auctions. The claim was unsuccessful as [...]. The plaintiff had suffered no damage to their own property. Their losses flowed from damage to cattle owned by the local farmers. Of course, if one of the farmers had claimed for loss of profits by reason of not being able to sell an infected cow the claim would have succeeded as that would have been economic loss consequent on physical damage to property.
Answer
it was for pure economic loss
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it f profits against the defendant Institute. The defendants had negligently released the foot and mouth virus and infected local cattle, resulting in a cattle movement ban and the cancellation of local auctions. The claim was unsuccessful as <span>it was for pure economic loss. The plaintiff had suffered no damage to their own property. Their losses flowed from damage to cattle owned by the local farmers. Of course, if one of the farmers had claimed for los
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.