|
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:21 From: Neil Foster Subject: Negligent misrepresentation - duty to speak
The decision of the House of Lords in Hamilton and others (Appellants) v. Allied Domecq plc (Respondents) (Scotland) [2007] UKHL 33 turns in the end on a question of fact, but there are some interesting comments in the judgement of Lord Rodger at paras [19]-[23] on the question whether, in an action for negligent misrepresentation, there can be liability for a "failure to speak". His Lordship seems to endorse the remarks of Slade LJ in Banque Keyser [1990] 1 QB 665 that there might be such cases, but they would need to involve "voluntary assumption of responsibility in the relevant sense and reliance on that assumption". Here the defendant businessman who had allegedly failed to advise about the consequences of adopting one form of marketing over another, had not in any way "assumed responsibility" to advise the plaintiff, with whom he was in commercial negotiations.
Regards Neil Foster
<<<< Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next Message >>>>>
|
»
»
»
»