Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It examines the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and addresses the extent of damages available under s 2(1) for negligent misrepresentation. The court controversially decided that under the Act, the appropriate measure of damages was the same as that for common law fraud, or damages for all losses flowing from a misrepresentation, even if unforeseeable.
Negligent misstatement is not strictly part of the law of misrepresentation, but is a tort based upon the 1964 obiter dicta in Hedley Byrne v Heller [72] where the House of Lords found that a negligently-made statement (if relied upon) could be actionable provided a "special relationship" existed between the parties.
Agency (law) Case Farms of Ohio , 96 F. Supp. 2d 578 (W.D. Tex. 1999), is a case involving poor working conditions for migratory workers. It established that a principal / agent relationship existed between Case Farms and America's Tempcorps (ATC) that allowed Case Farms to be liable for its agent's actions.
It held that a non-fraudulent misrepresentation gave no right to damages. This was decided decades before Hedley Byrne v Heller, where damages for negligent misrepresentation were introduced in English law, and, thus, it would today be regarded as wrongly decided under the tort of negligent misrepresentation.
Negligence by the attorney, A loss or injury to the client caused by the negligence, and; Financial loss or injury to the client. To satisfy the third element, legal malpractice requires proof of what would have happened had the attorney not been negligent; that is, "but for" the attorney's negligence ("but for" causation). [3]
A tort of negligent interference occurs when one party's negligence damages the contractual or business relationship between others, causing economic harm, such as by blocking a waterway or causing a blackout that prevents the utility company from being able to uphold its existing contracts with consumers.
Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1932) is a US tort law case regarding negligent misstatement, decided by Cardozo, C.J. It contained the now famous line on "floodgates" that the law should not admit "to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."
Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC, No. 3:11-cv-00348 (N.D. Ohio June 6, 2011), [1] was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in which professional singer Matthew Smith, known as Matt Heart, sued Summit Entertainment.