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
Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] AC 520
Answer
The plaintiffs in this case had had a factory constructed by a building firm. The plaintiffs had made it clear that because of the kind of machinery they were going to be using, they required special flooring and they recommended suitable flooring contractors. The floor was laid by these contractors but was found to be defective. The plaintiffs bought an action against the flooring sub-contractors for the defect in the flooring and subsequent delay in initiating production. This was despite there being no threat to health and safety, nor any risk to the actual fabric of the building. The House of Lords allowed the claim. There was a duty of care because there had been ‘assumed responsibility’ and ‘reasonable reliance’ between the parties. As Lord Roskill stated the relationship between the parties was ‘almost as close a commercial relationship… as it is possible to envisage short of privity of contract’.

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] AC 520
Answer
?

Tags
#law #negligence #pel #tort
Question
Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] AC 520
Answer
The plaintiffs in this case had had a factory constructed by a building firm. The plaintiffs had made it clear that because of the kind of machinery they were going to be using, they required special flooring and they recommended suitable flooring contractors. The floor was laid by these contractors but was found to be defective. The plaintiffs bought an action against the flooring sub-contractors for the defect in the flooring and subsequent delay in initiating production. This was despite there being no threat to health and safety, nor any risk to the actual fabric of the building. The House of Lords allowed the claim. There was a duty of care because there had been ‘assumed responsibility’ and ‘reasonable reliance’ between the parties. As Lord Roskill stated the relationship between the parties was ‘almost as close a commercial relationship… as it is possible to envisage short of privity of contract’.
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The ‘high water mark’ is generally considered to be the House of Lords decision in Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] AC 520 (Horsey and Rackley). The plaintiffs in this case had had a factory constructed by a building firm. The plaintiffs had made it clear that because of the kind of machinery they were goi

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.