Recovering Economic Losses Cases

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: k1016450
  • Created on: 25-04-14 14:39
View mindmap
  • Recovering Economic Losses
    • Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co v Veitch 1942
      • Facts: A trade union asked port workers to establish an embargo on the importation of yarn and export of related goods, to a company undercutting prices and not using traditional methods.
      • Principle: There was no conspiracy as it was not unlawful to affect anothers business if the purpose of an action is to defend a trade as opposed to injuring another.
      • Outcome: No conspiracy. The embargo was legal.
    • OBG v Allan 2007
      • Facts: Defendants were appointed to deal with the business but this was later found to be invalid. Acting in good faith, they took control of the assets and undertakings.
      • Principle: Primary liability can be caused by: procuring a breach of contract (contract is breached and the conduct caused that breach, knew about the breached term or turned a blind eye to it, and realised the conduct would have that effect), or causing loss by unlawful means. These are two essentially different causes of action.
      • Outcome: The receivers were not liable as they were acting in good faith and intended to cause no loss.
    • White v Jones 1995
      • Facts: A testator changed his will to include his daughters (previously it did not due to a dispute), but the solicitors did not change it before his death.
      • Principle: Solicitors owe a duty of care to the beneficiary of a will where he could reasonably foresee a consequence of his negligence may result in a loss of the intended legacy.
      • Outcome: The solicitor was liable for the money.
    • Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank 2007
      • Facts: A bank was notified of a freezing injunction granted to a third party, but did not comply.
      • Principle: The bank owed the third party no duty of care, as they could be punished in court for contempt of court and there had been no communication between the parties so it would not have been fair just and reasonable to do so.
      • Outcome: The bank was not liable for a duty of care.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Recovering Economic Losses resources »