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