Law of Tort Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Law of Tort - Essay Example To begin with, the information is solicited at a party which indicates that in the circumstances, Mary could not have reasonably expected Winston to exercise a degree of care. Secondly, there is no evidence on the facts of the case for discussion indicating the Winston held himself out as having specialized knowledge relative to good used car. It would appear that Mary is relying on the fact that Winston is her boyfriend and this is not the requisite special relationship alluded to in Hedley Byrne. The special relationship referred to is in which the individual relied on for information and advice is in that line of business. Liability for negligent misstatement will not arise in social settings.5 The situation with Errol is quite different as Winston is asked for advice based on his professional capacity as an account executive. Errol wants advice about the Winston’s company’s profitability and sales potential with a view to going into business with Winston. Liability for negligent misstatement would arise where advice or information is sought from a person who is qualified to give that information or advice and it is clear that the information or advice is going to be relied on.6 Therefore Winston owes Errol a duty of care since he is an account executive and owns the business that Errol wants information about for the sole purpose of going into business with Winston. It is clear that Errol will rely on Winston’s information, as Errol is seeking the information for a specific purpose.7 Winston can also be liable to Errol for remaining silent when his boss Felicity fraudulently misled Errol with respect to the insurance policy. Although Felicity is Winston’s boss, Sizzler’s is Winston’s company, the fraud involved information about Sizzler’s insurance policy covering Errol’s new shop. Therefore Felicity is actually Winston’s agent. Under the ruling in Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shi pping Co., the principle is liable for the fraud of an agent who was acting under the principle’s authority.8 Winston will also be liable for negligent misstatement with respect to the reference he provided for Barnie. Barnie was let go from Winston’s employ as a result of restructuring, not for the reasons stated in his reference for Barnie. The fact that Winston believed that his reference was honest is of no consequence since he failed to investigate the facts before committing his reference to paper and distribution. It was held in Cox v Sun Alliance Life Ltd that an employer owed a duty of care to conduct reasonable enquiries into the facts. All negative statements must only be made after conducting a reasonable inquiry or investigation.9 This case confirms an earlier ruling by the House of Lords in which it was ruled that an employer