- This topic has 7 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
- Posts
”Pure economic loss is financial damage suffered as the result of the negligent act of another party which is not accompanied by any physical damage to a person or property”
sir isn’t it weird there is no damage to property but named as pure economic loss. I did not understand the concept of economic loss.. it’s confusing what is pure economic loss and consequential loss.
Here’s an example of pure economic loss
Look up the case Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners
and here’s a made up situation to illustrate pure economic loss …
Where the negligence of one person causes another to miss a business opportunity, that would be pure economic loss
Consequential loss is more in the nature of Victoria Laundry v Newman Industries where, as a consequence of Newman’s delays, the Laundry lost 3 months’ profits
OK?
1. sir I understood the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller and partners but still confused. In this case, there was a disclaimer so claimant could not claim the loss. But , if there was not disclaimer could Hedley Byrne claim the loss?
Bank owe duty of care to company. isn’t it ? Bank has responsibility to give correct information about creditors. so hasn’t it been breach of duty of care irrespective of disclaimer?
I apologize for sticking into same topic .
Yes, it’s a breach of duty (the duty not to be negligent)
But the bank had a disclaimer exonerating it from liability in the event they were wrong
It is similar to what was seen on some documents in the past (I’ve not seen it recently) – the abbreviation “E & OE” which stands for “Errors and Omissions Excepted”
It’s an exclusion clause and WAS considered reasonable in the days when this case was current
It’s unlikely that a bank would get away with it in 2016
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.