Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities

[1986] QB 507

Case summary last updated at 20/01/2020 15:57 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities

 P bought pumps for keeping its lobsters alive from X, manufactured by D. They were faulty and the lobsters died. P sued D for causing pure economic loss. CA rejected this since, for pure economic loss, there has to be a special degree of proximity (i.e. a special relationship) + reliance + assumption of responsibility. There was not sufficient proximity between a purchaser and a manufacturer in pure economic loss cases. 
Goff LJ: For pure economic loss, the purchaser can only sue the immediate vendor and not a manufacturer. Junior Books is distinguished as giving an exceptionally close relationships on its own facts. There was also reliance. Therefore it is not an authority for the proposition that the manufacturers or TPs are commonly liable for economic loss. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>