Lord Morris in Hedley Byrne thought that the defendant needed some special expertise in order for there to be a special relationship – the defendant needing to be in a better position than the claimant to know the facts. (See above as to parity.) There is unlikely to be a special relationship if the parties are on an equal footing. Initially, the Privy Council thought that the claimant needed to show that it was the defendant’s business to give the advice in which they had special expertise However, the Court of Appeal in [case]stated that there was no need for the defendant to be in the business of giving advice. This approach was affirmed in the case of Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29 where the defendant, who had claimed to know about cars, gave advice to the plaintiff who was his friend. There was a special relationship even though it was not a professional consultation; merely advice in a social setting.
Answer
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Lord Morris in Hedley Byrne thought that the defendant needed some special expertise in order for there to be a special relationship – the defendant needing to be in a better position than the claimant to know the facts. (See above as to parity.) There is unlikely to be a special relationship if the parties are on an equal footing. Initially, the Privy Council thought that the claimant needed to show that it was the defendant’s business to give the advice in which they had special expertise However, the Court of Appeal in [case]stated that there was no need for the defendant to be in the business of giving advice. This approach was affirmed in the case of Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29 where the defendant, who had claimed to know about cars, gave advice to the plaintiff who was his friend. There was a special relationship even though it was not a professional consultation; merely advice in a social setting.
Answer
?
Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Lord Morris in Hedley Byrne thought that the defendant needed some special expertise in order for there to be a special relationship – the defendant needing to be in a better position than the claimant to know the facts. (See above as to parity.) There is unlikely to be a special relationship if the parties are on an equal footing. Initially, the Privy Council thought that the claimant needed to show that it was the defendant’s business to give the advice in which they had special expertise However, the Court of Appeal in [case]stated that there was no need for the defendant to be in the business of giving advice. This approach was affirmed in the case of Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29 where the defendant, who had claimed to know about cars, gave advice to the plaintiff who was his friend. There was a special relationship even though it was not a professional consultation; merely advice in a social setting.
Answer
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it ship if the parties are on an equal footing. Initially, the Privy Council thought that the claimant needed to show that it was the defendant’s business to give the advice in which they had special expertise However, the Court of Appeal in <span>Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801 stated that there was no need for the defendant to be in the business of giving advice. This approach was affirmed in the case of Chaudhry v Prabhakar [1989] 1 WLR 29 where the defend
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.