- This topic has 7 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
A was given an ipod for his birthday by his uncle. Due to a design defect, it set fire to his bedroom and caused damage to carpets and furniture, A was made ill by smoke inhalation
but he is not entitled to claim the cost of replacing the defective ipod which would be pure economic loss. sir how is this pure economic loss? As a result of defective ipod, our extra cost incurred for its replacement . so, isn’t this consequential economic loss. ? defective ipod gave direct rise to extra cost. how this defect does not give rise to liability?
no…….. so it means, if no contact,then damage one property is pure economic loss?
I’m not happy with your example 🙁
Look on the internet at the case Donohue v Stevenson
I understood the case Donohue V stevenson but above example messed me up .. 🙁 this example was from kaplan.
In Spartan steel and Alloys ltd V Martin and Co ltd, I could not get the point why the profits lost due to the factory not being operational for 15 hrs not recovered?
the given reason is, black out can happen anytime anywhere so it’s a pure economic loss.but in above case black out was the result of negligence of contractors . isn’t it consequential economic loss?
I am really not getting idea on pure economic loss and consequential economic loss
IF the blackout was as a consequence of the contractors’ negligence then the injured party, the one suffering the blackout, should have been able to sue the contractor.
But the injured party’s customer has no claim against the contractor – how far could they reasonably foresee that their negligence would cause damage to the customer
Your example of the ipod is a POOR example. No manufacturer can exclude liability for death or personal injury suffered as a consequence of their faulty goods
If you’re going to test me like this, at least give me a sensible example …. or at least try to find a sensible example in Kaplan
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.