The plaintiff and defendants traded in fruit and vegetables. The defendant began to accept credit orders from a third party, but he was tardy in payment. The plaintiffs asked as to the third party, and repeesentations were made that the company was ‘alright’ and the plaintiffs themselves granted credit. The third party became insolvent, and the plaintiff cought damages for the misleading reference.
Held: A duty of care existed to the plaintiffs and damages were recoverable from the company defendant. The need for care in answering the enquiry was clear. The defendant company was vicariously liable for the neglient answers given by its employees. The 1828 Act did not operate as a defence to a claim in negligence.
Citations:
[1967] 2 All ER 850
Statutes:
Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mutual Life And Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd And Another v Evatt PC 16-Nov-1971
The plaintiff had been an investor with the defendant. He asked them about an associated company. He was given advice which was incorrect. He claimed damages for negligence.
Held: The company was not itself in the business of giving such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.180549
