This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Tort Law Notes

What Is Pure Economic Loss Notes

Updated What Is Pure Economic Loss Notes

Tort Law Notes

Tort Law

Approximately 1070 pages

Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB tort law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).

These were the best Tort Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest results in ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

What is Pure Economic Loss?

Definition

  • Giliker: where loss is purely financial

    • Consequential losses are not pure economic loss

      • e.g. X suffers a facial injury owing to D negligently running him over with a car

      • X is a model

      • X now loses contracts and future contracts

        • This is not economic loss because it is a consequence extending from the personal injury

    • Only when Z suffers purely financial loss is this pure economic loss in law:

      • Suppose X is contracted the his agent Z

      • Z can no longer get money from X’s work, because X cannot work anymore

      • Z has suffered no personal injury nor property damage

        • She has suffered a purely financial loss

          • Her pocket has been hit

            • But nothing else has

  • Spartan Steel v Martin and Co [1973]:

    • D was a construction company near to SS’s factory, which was supplied by an electricity cable. D negligently severed that cable by not taking enough care, meaning the factory had to close.

      • The melt already in the furnace suffered damage

        • SS was allowed to claim for this loss AND the lost profits from the damaged melt

      • BUT factory had had to close down for 14 hours

        • Meaning 5 other melts could not be melted down

        • Thus, SS suffered lost orders from those 5 melts they could not melt down during the “down time”.

    • Lord Denning: SS can recover lost melt, but not the 5 others that weren’t damaged

      • Should be no liability for lost profits and PEL because

        • Nature of hazard

          • Loads of people suffer loss owing to things beyond their control – go and get on with it

        • Floodgates – desire to avoid crushing liability

          • Used to stop loads of claims happening

          • If claims for economic loss allowed for power shutdown, would be no end of claims

            • And no end of damages

          • Would be wasteful to investigate whether the claims were real or not

        • Risk of economic loss should be borne by whole community

        • Law provides for deserving cases where property damage occurred

    • Problems with the Denning Approach:

      • Hoyano:

        • PEL can be just as devastating to people as property damage

        • PEL can at least be compensated like for like (lost money for compensation money),

          • whereas personal injury monetary compensation often futile in the most serious cases

        • Lord Edmund Davies dissenting

          • Rather arbitrary line drawn

            • Between consequential losses and economic loss resulting from damage to property which C only has contractual interest

            • Essentially drawn on who actually owns the property damaged

              • Which may be minor

                • In comparison to who depends on the property damaged and therefore then suffers loss

            • Wouldn’t it be clearer to say that D is liable for PEL where it is reasonably foreseeable

              • Problem then is that is that “reasonably foreseeable” can extend very far and to large numbers of claimants.


The effect of policy on the rationale behind denying PEL

  • Giliker: Law should not undermine contract law

    • Consistency

      • Those who contract for the installation and maintenance of emergency generators

        • Have a contractual remedy if they then break down during a power cut

        • Would be inconsistent to give this remedy in tort when already available in contract

    • Nature of Tort and Contract

      • Contract is much more specific and also a voluntarily assumed obligation

      • Tort law is more general and imposes obligations upon people

        • Even when X does not know he owes an obligation to Z

      • Argument = protect economic interests by contract or tough luck

    • Problems with this way of thinking

      • Stapleton: why is contract a more desirable way of dealing with PEL?

      • Hoyano: Too simplistic analysis

        • Sometimes no opportunity to make a contract

        • Sometimes even when you have a contract C wants to use tort

          • Different limitation periods (tort more generous)

          • Different measure of damages

          • Escape route from contractual term excluding liability or capping damages

  • Cadazo CJ: Avoid Crushing...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Notes.

More Tort Law Samples