1. Deceit is an interesting issue.
Now, my understanding of deceit is that the claimant must have been deceived. So it would not be enough to show that you have been left worse off as a result of deceit if you yourself have not been deceived. The gist of deceit is being deceived, not suffering
loss.
However, I don't off the top of my head know of any Commonwealth authority standing for that proposition, or the opposite (there is US authority, but there is US authority for most legal propositions.)
Anyone?
2. The Directive Gerard mentioned is here
See art 11 on enforcement.
I am very unhappy with public law regulatory duties simply being transposed into enforceable private law rights, but the Directive doesn't require that.
RS
From: Kleefeld, John [john.kleefeld@usask.ca]
Sent: 24 September 2015 00:12
To: gerard.sadlier@gmail.com
Cc: Eoin O'Dell; HOGG Martin; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: Volkswagen and breach of contract/tort
Colleagues: Here is a link to an article about the class action that has just been filed in Alberta, Canada:
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/billion-dollar-lawsuit-filed-in-edmonton-against-volkswagen-canada
And here is a link to the plaintiff firm’s web page, which includes a link to the statement of claim:
Hello
I wonder whether you would potentially have a cause of action under
the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive? Certainly in Ireland, by
virtue of Section 74 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 (the act
which transposed the directive into Irish law) an unfair, misleading
or prohibited commercial practice is actionable in damages, including
aggravated and exemplary damages, subject to certain exceptions.
To be honest I am not sure if that right to damages is found in the
directive or was national gold plating (I suspect the latter) and I do
not know if there is an equivalent right in the UK transposition for
example.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/19/section/74/enacted/en/html
Kind regards
Ger
On 9/23/15, Eoin O'Dell <ODELLE@tcd.ie> wrote:
Dear all
The claim in the U.S. class action suit is here, FWIW:
http://cliffordlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Dorn-Haralovich-v-Volkswagen.pdf
Eoin
———————————————
Dr Eoin O'Dell
School of Law, TCD
+353 87 202 1120 (m)
Sent from my iPhone
———————————————
On 23 Sep 2015, at 08:11, HOGG Martin
<Martin.Hogg@ed.ac.uk<mailto:Martin.Hogg@ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
Dear all,
I am the owner of a Volkswagen Polo. It is not one of the diesel ones which
are being recalled because of allegedly falsified emission tests.
Nonetheless, it is a car tarnished by having a VW badge on it. When I come
to sell it, I may well find that I get less for it than I might otherwise
have, because of general reputational damage caused to the brand by VW’s (it
would appear) fraudulent practices. I wonder whether circumstances such as
these might trigger a damages claim against VW by owners of cars in my
position. Breach of contract might found the basis (though for breach of
what term? Contracts for the purchase of a car don’t import, I imagine, an
implied term of mutual trust and confidence, such as arises in employment
contracts, and founded “stigma damages” in the Malik v BBCI case), but I
doubt that a tortious/delictual claim would arise (given the potentially
huge number of claimants affected by the pure economic loss suffered, albeit
that any of them who directly bought their car from VW would be in a
proximate relationship by virtue of the contractual relationship). I’d be
interested to hear anyone’s thoughts on this. (I’m not actually thinking of
suing VW, as my intention was to drive the car for a number of years until
it basically gave up, so my musings on the subject are purely
hypothetical).
Best wishes,
Martin
Professor Martin A. Hogg
Edinburgh Law School
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.