Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:16:58 +0100

From: Robert Stevens

Subject: Law's (Il)logic and remoteness in deceit

(1) Steve wrote:

Do anyone know of any judicial statements which require logic in judicial decision-making? If so, which sort of "logic" is involved?

What about Lord Devlin in his wonderful speech in the House of Lords in Hedley Byrne:

"No system of law can be workable if it has not got logic at the root of it."

A useful antidote to Halsbury's attempt to defend the indefensible in Quinn.

(2) On an entirely unrelated matter, does anyone know of a case in deceit where the loss suffered was coincidental to the wrong? By coincidental I mean that the probability of the loss which eventuated was not increased by the deceit? I dimly recall a US decision, or perhaps I dreamt it, of a purchaser who buys a new car from a dealer as a result of the dealer's deceit, who is subsequently involved in a car accident. If he had not bought the new car he would not have been in that place at that time and so would not have been injured, but as the risk of being involved in the car accident was not increased by replacing his old car with the new one, no recovery.

Is there such a case, either in the US or the Commonwealth? Commonwealth for preference as we are less generous to fraudsters. (I don't think Smith New Court v Scrimgeour Vickers is such a case BTW.)

Offlist if preferred.

Robert Stevens
Barrister
University of Oxford

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