A special relationship between Chew and Don [Hedley Byrne v Heller] Representor has reasonable grounds to believe his statement was true. Is a term; as Chew would not invest in the bonds if not for Don’s words. Sue for negligent misrepresentation (Using “But-for” test to assess damages) Suing under the Tort of Negligence, Chew has to prove: Duty of Care owed to Chew by Don – Factual Foreseeability, proximity checked Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) – Negligent misstatement results economic loss Skill & Expertise of Don.
Don knows/ought to know that Chew will rely on the statement Don assumes responsibility for statement (Asking him to come by his bank to set up investment account) Breach of duty of Care – Don reasonably expected to check the company as a professional, and Breach caused damage suffered by Chew “But-for” test – $300k damage. Breach is the material contribution to risk of health damage – Nervous Shock but it is not within the foreseeability that Chew would accidentally poison his customers and get a heart failure. Assessing damage, we evaluate the remoteness of the damages. Is $300k too remote?
No. Medical bills? No, not too remote considering the special circumstances (use eggshell) for Chew. But closure of stall is not claimable as it is too remote. Don is likely to raise the Volenti Non Fit Injuria in the investment bond. But chew shown no full knowledge of the risks and consents. (Section 2 UCTA) and mentions he has no knowledge of stocks. Resulting in Chew being able to sue and claim damages for his medical bills and loss through investment. Issue 2: Bree can sue Coco Bank under the tort of negligence. Bree to prove: Duty of Care owed to Bree by Coco Bank.
Spandeck Test – Negligent act causing economical damage Factual Foreseeability – Arguably foreseeable as the negligent act is likely to result in the damage/destruction of valuable items, Proximity – Reliance on Coco Bank to keep it safe, Coco Bank also assumes responsibility, No considerations that limits liability Duty of Care established Breach of duty of Care High likelihood of damaging valuable items, avoiding is by checking > low cost, Standard of Care – No Professional practice for Coco Bank, Bree can invoke Res Ipsa Loquitur to prove breach of duty of care Defendant in control of situation (yes).
Accident would not have happened if proper care was taken (yes) Cause of accident unknown to Bree (yes) Breach caused damage suffered by Bree. “But-for” test We evaluate the remoteness of the damage ($250k) to assess the damage. And taking into account the general rule that Coco Bank needs to take Bree as she is with the existing predisposition. We thus conclude that the damage is not too remote. Bree is likely able to claim for the $250k inheritance in compensation as the court tries to restore the Bree to position.