Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:52:40 -0600

From: Lewis Klar

Subject: Reasonable Reliance Case

I tend to agree with Kelvin that the trial judgment stands in view of these paragraphs which Kelvin notes. What is somewhat confusing however is the statement in para 40 right after the sentence that the judgment is not open to review on appeal:

"Nonetheless, it is open to Avco to challenge the trial judge's conclusion on negligent misrepresentation in response to the appeal, as it has done".

What is the point of "challenging" this conclusion if it is not open to review? Also para 44 says that the trial judge's finding on the plaintiff's negligence "ought to have been determinative on the question of foreseeable and reasonable reliance in respect of the tort of negligent misrepresentation".

It seems however that not having cross-appealed, the defendant is out of luck.

Lewis Klar

<<< "Low Fatt Kin Kelvin" 4/22 1:32a >>>

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

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