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.



Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908, the House of Lords confirmed that the cost of repairing inherently defective products or property was rightly classified as pure economic loss. Here the claimant bought a house which subsequently developed structural defects because of inadequate foundations. Eventually, the plaintiff was forced to sell it for £35,000 less then it would have fetched without the defect. The Lords were of the opinion that [...]. For this reason, it was a claim for pure economic loss and was not recoverable. This was not a dangerous defect but simply a defect as to the quality of a product.
Answer
there would be no liability on the part of a defendant where the dangerous defect manifests itself before any actual damage has occurred

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908, the House of Lords confirmed that the cost of repairing inherently defective products or property was rightly classified as pure economic loss. Here the claimant bought a house which subsequently developed structural defects because of inadequate foundations. Eventually, the plaintiff was forced to sell it for £35,000 less then it would have fetched without the defect. The Lords were of the opinion that [...]. For this reason, it was a claim for pure economic loss and was not recoverable. This was not a dangerous defect but simply a defect as to the quality of a product.
Answer
?

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
In Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908, the House of Lords confirmed that the cost of repairing inherently defective products or property was rightly classified as pure economic loss. Here the claimant bought a house which subsequently developed structural defects because of inadequate foundations. Eventually, the plaintiff was forced to sell it for £35,000 less then it would have fetched without the defect. The Lords were of the opinion that [...]. For this reason, it was a claim for pure economic loss and was not recoverable. This was not a dangerous defect but simply a defect as to the quality of a product.
Answer
there would be no liability on the part of a defendant where the dangerous defect manifests itself before any actual damage has occurred
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
t a house which subsequently developed structural defects because of inadequate foundations. Eventually, the plaintiff was forced to sell it for £35,000 less then it would have fetched without the defect. The Lords were of the opinion that <span>there would be no liability on the part of a defendant where the dangerous defect manifests itself before any actual damage has occurred. For this reason, it was a claim for pure economic loss and was not recoverable. This was not a dangerous defect but simply a defect as to the quality of a product.<span></bod

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.