LAW6000: Business & Corporations Law- Shaddock v Parramatta- Law Case Study Assignment

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

MAS7400

Law Case Study Assignment:

Case:

CATCHWORDS

Negligence – Duty of care – Liability for erroneous information – Information given by municipal authority about existence of road widening proposals – Information sought by solicitor for intending purchaser of land – Telephone inquiry – Written request – Reply omitting reference to road widening proposals.

Damages – Measure of damages for negligent mis-statement.

HEARING

1980, September 10, 11; 1981, October 28. 28:10:1981

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

DECISION

1981, October 28.

The following written judgments were delivered: –

GIBBS C.J. The appellant companies, the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court of erroneous information supplied to them innocently but negligently by the respondent, the Council of the City of Parramatta. The learned trial judge, Waddell J., found that the Council had been careless but that it owed no relevant duty of care to the appellants. He accordingly gave judgment for the Council although, following a very useful practice, he nevertheless proceeded to assess damages lest his decision as to liability should be reversed. He held that if he was in error on the question of liability the amount of damages to which the appellants would be entitled is $173,938. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, affirmed his decision dismissing the appellants’ action (1979) 1 NSWLR 566 . (at p228)

Examine the facts in the Shaddock case. (See paragraph 2 of the judgment)

Can the Shaddock case be used as a precedent? Is it a binding precedent (consider which Court made the decision and its authority). You will need to review the law relating to precedents to answer these questions. (See p30 – 31 [1.41] – [1.44] of the textbook)

In what two ways was information given to Mr Carroll by the Council about road widening proposals in the Shaddock case? How does the outcome differ in each case? Why is the outcome different in each case? What is the reason given by the court for the different outcome? (See paragraphs 2,12 and 13)

The Council did not, in the certificate which it gave to Mr Carroll, state that there were any road-widening proposals which would affect the property of L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd. Was remaining silent and not stating that there were any road-widening proposals the same as actually stating that there were no road-widening proposals? (See paragraphs 3, 13)

What is the important principle which was established or settled in the cases of Hedley Byrne and Evatt in relation to liability for financial loss arising as a result of a negligent misrepresentation?

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services