ODG archive
 

ODG front page

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Search ODG site

   

 

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:31:52 +0800

From: Low Fatt Kin Kelvin

Subject: Reasonable Reliance Case

 

I think the trial judgment stands.

At para 40, it is stated that: "Given Avco's decision not to cross-appeal, the appellant is correct in saying that the judgment in his favour is not open to review on this appeal."

Also, at para 45, it is stated that: "For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs, ..."

Since the appeal is simply dismissed and the trial judge's order does not appear to have been varied, this, read together with para 40, suggests that the trial judgment stands.

 

Kelvin Low
National University of Singapore

-----Original Message-----

From: Lewis KLAR
Sent: 22 April 2003 06:09
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: ODG: Reasonable Reliance Case

I am having difficulty figuring out what the actual decision in AVCO was. At trial the negligent statement claim against AVCO succeeded, but the plaintiff was held 50% contributorily negligent. This judgment had the effect of reducing the plaintiff's obligations to AVCO under the mortgage covenant.

The plaintiff appealed the contributory negligence finding. The defendant AVCO did not cross-appeal from the decision holding it liable for negligent statement. Nevertheless, in response to the plaintiff's appeal it argued that the trial judge was wrong in holding it liable for negligent misrepresentation since the plaintiff's reliance was unreasonable and hence no duty was owed. The Court of Appeal agreed that the plaintiff's reliance was not reasonable and hence no duty was owed. It therefore dismissed the plaintiff's appeal re its own contributory negligence.

Question: did this holding automatically lead to the complete dismissal of the plaintiff's action for neg statement even though the defendant did not actually ever appeal this? Or does the original trial judgment stand, even though the Court of Appeal thought it was wrong?

I will have more on the merits of the argument later once I get this point clear.

Lewis Klar

 

 


<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>


 

 
Webspace provided by UCC
  »
»
»
»
»
  Comments and suggestions are welcome - contact s.hedley@ucc.ie