|   | 
Created by Tells Bell
almost 11 years ago
 | |
| Question | Answer | 
| Derry v Peek | originally only liability if statement made fraudulently not negligently | 
| Candler v Crane Christmas Co | DENNING disenting argued for liability attached to losses from negligently made statements | 
| Hedley Byrne v Heller | upheld dissent in Candler - negligent statements could incur liability for financial losses | 
| Caparo v Dickman | refined rule in Hedley - criteria for special relationship between parties | 
| James McNaughten | insufficient proximity meant no special relationship - d had not known the accounts were to be sent to bidder | 
| Spring v Guardian Assurance | negligent reference led to ec loss due to lack of work - d was liable | 
| Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick | accountant failed to notice partners fraud - was liable | 
| White v Jones | assumption of responsibility - daughters vs solicitor | 
| Mutual Life | gave advice not under his specific skill - not liable | 
| Chaudhry v Prabhakar | advice given in social context does not count - not liable | 
| Spartan Steel | previously ec loss was only recoverable when consequential | 
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.