Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Norwich CC v Harvey

[1989] 1 All ER 1180

Case summary last updated at 03/01/2020 17:47 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Norwich CC v Harvey

N contracted with X for X to extend a swimming pool, including a clause that the risk of fire was purely N’s risk. X subcontracted to H whose negligence caused a fire and damage. N tried to bring a tortious claim against H. CA rejected the claim since there was no duty of care: there was no proximity (WHAT? Surely if you are working on someone’s house you should have the owners in contemplation) and it wouldn’t be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty in this scenario. The mere absence of privity of contract did not make it fair, just etc to impose a duty. In fact the exemption clauses of the main contract could be relied on by them because P had accepted the risk of fire lay with them, regardless of whether or not negligence had caused it. 

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

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

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic 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
Contract Law Notes

Contract Law Notes >>