Sentences with phrase «pure economic loss»

The Manitoba Court of Appeal has held that a defendants» motion for summary judgment should be dismissed, rejecting their argument that claims for pure economic loss for patent defects that are not imminently dangerous should not proceed to trial.

Justice Gleeson saw the claim for costs of raising and maintaining the child as a claim for a novel form of pure economic loss arising because a parent - child relationship had come into existence [26]- [27].

«I don't suggest expanding the scope of tort law (ie — compensation to victims struck by lightening, or compensation for pure economic loss etc.) I simply suggest that those who the law says ought to be compensated actually be compensated.»

The scope of damage recoverable includes direct and consequential damage (including pure economic loss and, in some jurisdictions, punitive damages).

This stance has been reiterated in the 21st Century, even in cases of pure economic loss.26 This is exemplified in Arthur JS Hall & Co. v Simons27, which mainly considers the third stage of the test, in which stage one and two where so obvious that discussion was left absent.

Against this background Lord Hoffmann thought it would be «an extraordinary step suddenly to extend the old tort of conversion to impose strict liability for pure economic loss on receivers who were appointed and acted in good faith».

Moreover, the Court referred to another decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal [5] that permitted a claim for pure economic loss to proceed to trial even though it involved a patent defect (although the issue of a patent vs. latent defect was not argued before that court).

The Court agreed that since the law on liability for pure economic losses was still developing, it would be inappropriate to dismiss the claim before trial.

No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co., [1] where the Court held a defendant liable for a dangerous defect even though there had been no damage to persons or property (i.e. a pure economic loss claim).

Lesotho asserted that the investors could have pursued either a tortious claim for pure economic loss (known as an «Aquilian» action) or a public law claim, but had not done so.

Accordingly the individuals were not entitled to any award because what they were looking for was classed as «pure economic loss» which was not recoverable.

A proposed class action against Whirlpool Canada LP was a «product liability claim for pure economic losses for an allegedly negligently designed non-dangerous product» that disclosed no plain and obvious cause of action, an Ontario court ruled.

Although the facts of Caparo16 where based on the pure economic loss, the HOL developed the tripartite test in establishing a general duty of care.17 Yet Lord Bridge acknowledged:

Further examination of the tripartite test in regards to pure economic loss is considered by Lord Geoff in Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd31 which is, Identified as falling within the «Hedley Byrne32 principle «33 in which the test of Caparo is set aside34.

The Court noted that this was a claim for pure economic loss and, therefore, the Respondent had to show more than foreseeability to make out the claim.

The white paper states that victims of antitrust infringements should receive full compensation for their loss: not just actual loss, but also any pure economic loss.

Damage is damage - pure economic loss is a recognised form of damage.

Overlooking the unwanted physical burden of pregnancy on Mrs Cattanach, and framing the entire claim in terms of pure economic loss, seems remarkable to me, but the deeper point for Justice Gleeson was that he thought Mrs Cattanach's claim implied that the creation of the parent - child relationship was itself actionable damage.