The Church Commissioners owned a block of flats built by a firm of contractors. The plastering work was sub contracted. Fifteen years after the property was built it was found that the plastering work was defective. As there was no direct contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants an action was brought in tort. The judge found that all the plaster applied to concrete surfaces was defective because the sub-contractors, using a particular plaster then newly on the market called "Gyplite," had failed to follow the manufacturers' instructions. They should have applied one coat of bonding plaster and one coat of finishing plaster, but instead had interposed a coat of browning plaster (the older time-consuming and less effective method due to the time required for drying[1]) and it was this that in due course caused plaster, which should have remained sound for the lifetime of the building, to lose its key and require replacement. He said: in my judgment, a careful and competent plasterer would not have taken the risk of departing from what I find to be clear and unambiguous instructions to use bonding plaster followed by finishing plaster on concrete surfaces generally. In other words I consider that the plasterers were at fault. It was suggested on behalf of the Defendants that a reason why the plasterers did not follow the manufacturers' instructions was because it was more economical and easier to use undercoats of bonding plaster and browning plaster to achieve the desired thickness instead of a single undercoat of bonding plaster. I am not satisfied, having heard the evidence of Mr. Marshall about the cost of applying the different grades of plaster, that this is the correct explanation and it is not necessary for me to come to any conclusion about it. It is sufficient for me to say that in my judgment the plasterers did not exercise due care in that they failed to follow the manufacturers' instruction. This discussion points to the reasonable man objective test when assessing whether or not the accused tort feasors actions were reasonable or unreasonable in carrying out any duty of care in his activities. Junior Books v Veitchi confirms there is a duty of care to be owed by contractors and tradesmen in all such scenarios not only to the general public, occupants and owners but also to the head contractors or the development corporations. They would also owe a duty under Rylands and Fletcher to the neighboring property owners. So, the reasonable contractor on the job site or who might be sitting on the Tube or Clapham Omni Bus or the Double Decker 319 bus would tell us what would be reasonably expected of himself or any other contractor in his professional job duties. The Common Law will not be abrogated by statute but may be adopted by statute. The Common Law will always remain our tradition and the basis of principles that inform the appropriate development of statutory laws and codes. New arrivals to the discussion may not like the word "owe" in the formulation of the discussion involving duties of care but it is understood that Tort law is about obligations and one party owes the other a duty of care in certain scenarios where we can say reasonably that such a duty exists and is rightfully owed, lets say, to a customer, to a passenger, to a business client and to a building occupant. We can say to the person who has failed his duty of care with poisoned products or negligent building works that he can face a claim where it will show that he will owe a duty of care, that he breached that duty of care and the claimant suffered harm or loss as a result of that breach. There is debate as to whether pure economic loss can be considered harm but it could be a significant loss and therefore sufficient harm in any context. We might have to reassess the discussion and ensure there is no doubt that economic loss is sufficient harm to satisfy a claim in tory and not only a claim under contract law or in Delict. The claimant can make his choice. The damages might be the same if awarded but it seems Tort is usually the body of law that we utilise to address duties, harm and loss when there is no evident written agreement between the parties. When it comes to cases involving trade work, we can look to Anns. v. Merton and also Caparo v. Dickman for more insight. We could also read these cases carefully along with the Junior Books case to understand why they were not dealt with under contract law. You may say you suffered damages or harm and that harm might be purely economic but it is submitted that even economic loss is sufficient injury or harm to be dealt with in Tort cases where Ms. Stevenson, for example, in the Donoghue and Stevenson may have suffered nothing but economic loss if she had seen the decomposed snail in the bottle or what if she bought twelve spoiled bottles for a wedding party and the wedding had to be cancelled and rescheduled, causing economic loss? What if she was only the bride at the wedding and not the caterer who bought the ginger beer where we say she did not have privity of contract but could do as a reasonably contemplated end user and potential victim of the manufacturer's negligence. So, we should always ask ourselves not only if harm was suffered but what branch of law is best to address it and achieve our goals and each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The victim in Donoghue and Stevenson did not have privity of contract. Most tradesmen do and are in contractual relationships. Are the damages covered under warranty and if not, is a tort claim appropriate; and against whom? Could you call the police and then seek compensation from the criminal compensation board or the victims of crime compensation board? On going, we are always students of the law and study continually to ensure our right application of legal rules and established principles. We look to the tradesmen line of cases again. We look at Tort cases generally and see pure economic loss is sometimes sufficient for an award of damages such as in the Hedley and Heller case. What if you buy cheap aspirin and you encounter DNA in that brand that makes your dog more sociable when he drinks the toilet water after you urinate but it also seems to slow down your hair growth. Another cheap brand has no impact on hair growth and there is brand that accelerates it? Could you sue if the growth of hair on your head is accelerated? The answer is no. But, you might sue if your hair is going the other way. This should not happen when we can conspire to build our food in a way that is happy. We pay for it. It should not be proven as affecting us negatively. See George v. Skivington. Maybe a tenderer as discussed in a recent Scottish case, hoping for a municipal work contract does not have any agreement or contract with the government agency of any kind that would cause expectations during a bid of tender to win that municipal work contract and nor is he to think of himself as being injured or suffering tortious harm if the bidding process is unfamiliar or not befitting his expectations. He needs to learn the process and accept the local council and it's particular system; that it could vary from one council to the other. He might seek judicial review of the bidding process as a public authority decision and the grant of contractual award to one bidder over another if the process fails a general, expected standard of fairness and freedom from bias. He could also seek review under the various Acts that guarantee equality and equal treatment. You could get your degree audited if you think your 2:2 should have been a first but you think your result reflects a gender inequality or racial inequality or both as you are a woman of colour. But, maybe a 2:1, while you expect a 1:1 does not reflect gender bias or racial bias or it could and that is why you appealed your degree four times until it was withdrawn. But, should appealing a degree result presumptively, subjectively or objectively result in a lower degree classification? If you got a 2;1, there is nothing wrong in someone affirming and confirming the result. You are black and female, stole a few photos for your art course work maybe but you were not withdrawn for this. You did really graduate. ClIck here.

 

The Church Commissioners owned a block of flats built by a firm of contractors. The plastering work was sub contracted. Fifteen years after the property was built it was found that the plastering work was defective. As there was no direct contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants an action was brought in tort.

The judge found that all the plaster applied to concrete surfaces was defective because the sub-contractors, using a particular plaster then newly on the market called "Gyplite," had failed to follow the manufacturers' instructions. They should have applied one coat of bonding plaster and one coat of finishing plaster, but instead had interposed a coat of browning plaster (the older time-consuming and less effective method due to the time required for drying^[1]) and it was this that in due course caused plaster, which should have remained sound for the lifetime of the building, to lose its key and require replacement. He said:

in my judgment, a careful and competent plasterer would not have taken the risk of departing from what I find to be clear and unambiguous instructions to use bonding plaster followed by finishing plaster on concrete surfaces generally. In other words I consider that the plasterers were at fault. It was suggested on behalf of the Defendants that a reason why the plasterers did not follow the manufacturers' instructions was because it was more economical and easier to use undercoats of bonding plaster and browning plaster to achieve the desired thickness instead of a single undercoat of bonding plaster. I am not satisfied, having heard the evidence of Mr. Marshall about the cost of applying the different grades of plaster, that this is the correct explanation and it is not necessary for me to come to any conclusion about it. It is sufficient for me to say that in my judgment the plasterers did not exercise due care in that they failed to follow the manufacturers' instruction.

This discussion points to the reasonable man objective test when assessing whether or not the accused tort feasors actions were reasonable or unreasonable in carrying out any duty of care in his activities.  Junior Books v Veitchi confirms there is a duty of care to be owed by contractors and tradesmen in all such scenarios  not only to the general public, occupants and owners but also to the head contractors or the development corporations.   They would also owe a duty under Rylands and Fletcher to the neighboring property owners.   So, the reasonable contractor on the job site or who might be sitting on the Tube or Clapham Omni Bus or the Double Decker 319 bus would  tell us what would be reasonably expected of himself or any other contractor in his professional job duties. 

The Common Law will not be abrogated by statute but may be adopted by statute. The Common Law will always remain our tradition and the basis of principles that inform the appropriate development of statutory laws and codes. New arrivals to the discussion may not like the word "owe" in the formulation of the discussion involving duties of care but it is understood that Tort law is about obligations and one party owes the other a duty of care in certain scenarios where we can say reasonably that such a duty exists and is rightfully owed, lets say, to a customer, to a passenger, to a business client and to a building occupant. We can say to the person who has failed his duty of care with poisoned products or negligent building works that he can face a claim where it will show that he will owe a duty of care, that he breached that duty of care and the claimant suffered harm or loss as a result of that breach.  There is debate as to whether pure economic loss can be considered harm but it could be a significant loss and therefore sufficient harm in any context.  We might have to reassess the discussion and ensure there is no doubt that economic loss is sufficient harm to satisfy a claim in tory and not only a claim under contract law or in Delict.  The claimant can make his choice.  The damages might be the same if awarded but it seems Tort is usually the body of law that we utilise to address duties, harm and loss when there is no evident written agreement between the parties.   

When it comes to cases involving  trade work, we can look to Anns. v. Merton and also Caparo v. Dickman for more insight.  We could  also read these cases carefully along  with the Junior Books case to understand why they were not dealt with under contract law.  

You may say you suffered damages or harm and that harm might be purely economic but it is submitted that even economic loss is sufficient injury or harm to be dealt with in Tort cases where Ms. Stevenson, for example, in the Donoghue and Stevenson may have suffered nothing but economic loss if she had seen the decomposed snail in the bottle or what if she bought twelve spoiled bottles for a wedding party and the wedding had to be cancelled and rescheduled, causing economic loss? What if she was only the bride at the wedding and not the caterer who bought the ginger  beer where we say she did not have privity of contract but could do as a reasonably contemplated end user and potential victim of the manufacturer's negligence.  

So, we should always ask ourselves not only if harm was suffered but what branch of law is best to address it and achieve our goals and each case has to be dealt with on its own facts.  The victim in Donoghue and Stevenson did not have privity of contract.  Most tradesmen do and are in contractual relationships.   Are the damages covered under warranty and if not, is a tort claim appropriate; and against whom?   Could you call the police and then seek compensation from the criminal compensation board or the victims of crime compensation board?   

On going, we are always  students of the law and study continually to ensure our right application  of legal rules and established principles. 

We look to the tradesmen line of cases again. We look at Tort cases generally and see pure economic loss is sometimes sufficient for an award of damages such as in the Hedley and Heller case.  

What if you buy cheap aspirin and you encounter DNA in that brand that makes your dog more sociable when he drinks the toilet water after you urinate but it also seems to slow down your hair growth. Another cheap brand has no impact on hair growth and there is brand that accelerates it? 

Could you sue if the growth of hair on your head is accelerated? The answer is no.  But, you might sue if your hair is going the other way. This should  not happen when we can conspire  to build our food in a way that is happy.  We pay for it. It should not be proven as affecting us negatively. See George  v. Skivington.  

Maybe a tenderer as discussed  in a recent Scottish case, hoping for a  municipal work contract does not have any agreement or contract with the government agency of any kind that would cause expectations during a bid of tender to win that  municipal work contract and nor is he to think of himself as being injured or suffering tortious harm if the bidding process is unfamiliar or not befitting his expectations.   

He needs to learn the process and accept the local council and it's particular system; that it could  vary from one council  to the other.    He might seek judicial review of the bidding process as a public authority decision and the grant of contractual award to one bidder over another if the process fails a general, expected standard of fairness and freedom  from bias.  He could also seek review under the various Acts that guarantee equality and equal treatment.  

You could get your degree audited with a judicial  review application if you think your 2:2 should have been a first but you also think your result reflects a gender inequality or racial inequality or both as you are a woman of colour. But maybe a 2:1, while you expect a 1:1, does not reflect gender bias or racial bias  but reasonable objective discretion or it could  reflect bias and that is why you appealed  your degree four times until it was withdrawn. But, should appealing a degree result presumptively, not subjectively  or objectively,  in a lower degree classification?  If you got a 2;1, there is nothing wrong in someone affirming  and confirming the result that reflects  the student's own work. In affirming the result, you confirm you do not make mistakes. Affirm it on three appeals unless in the student's appeal process, you uncover  plagiarism or the misuse of other people's work.   You are black and female, stole a few photos for your art course work maybe but, let us be honest. You were not withdrawn for this. You did really graduate. Let's be honest.  So, what are you doing now except thieving art and selling it as your own? You say this is just business.   Look into that law suit. Tell them you believe. Mind you, you could get charged for making false statements in your claim. But you will say you are learning.  You will buy a property also once you are Euro economy funded enough to contemplate your learning in terms of ownership and formalities; what is yours and what is not yours.  

Even if I had suffered nervous shock in losing the service contract bid, could I sue? If I suffered emotional distress, could I sue? If I lost money on paper clips could I sue? Did he pay to ender the bidding process?  If he did, we could add some standard, general common law terms  and expectations to the common law construction of contract between the parties if he had paid to enter  the bid. The contract  would be for fairness and freedom from bias while the tenderers must accept that the process is subjective and also objective.  You can never say why you think you should  have won and expect the all the world to agree.   Maybe a cheaper yearly cost should he enough to win but maybe your bid might involve the wrong colours of toilet roll papers and the panel likes their toilet roll papers black or brown since it does not make the poop as obvious when used.   Maybe I could allege fraud in the criminal courts at a police station if the process is apparently rigged.

All scenarios are different but we can see that there is a line of cases generally that will confirm that tradesmen owe their customers a duty of care and if it is a customer with a contract,  the customer is best to claim under Contract for most of the foreseeable losses or damages caused due to defective work but then there are also other Torts such as the Tort of Emotional distress and usually the standard building contract would not cover this. The customer could pursue his claims for emotional disappointment accordingly under this book of Tort cases.  In either case, customers and home buyers must be reasonably competent, diligent and genuine home buyers that really do intend to buy a home from the owner/builder or with the owner and they would contract with him or her accordingly. They can't just give money to a  pub shifter on a bet to own all or part of  Ms. Donoghue's maisonette.   What are you really doing anyway?  Now, you want to say Ms. Donoghue owes you and also her family but they don't know you or who took your money.  Has someone offered you a genuine home buying opportunity? Work with them.  You would say that Ms. Donoghue, a Conveyancing Secretary, is responsible for your victimisation.  Leave her kettle and her life alone. You keep putting rat poison and you say she must pay. It's the pub grifter or shifter; I don't remember how you say it. But, I am not the one you are looking for if that is what this is about. It's the one that comes after me whose  tennis shoes, I cannot untie because of a knot. My real name is Raul anyway;  nor can I remain the figment of your anxious thought about potential involvement in your club or congregation.  I am  always involved because I am your brother. Don't we all say "Am I not my sibling sister or brother's keeper, helper?"  

It only takes a drop from the tea bag left in the cup.  

///////.  

 A general reasonable quality is to be expected in all building works and that commitment  to actually provide the customer what they expect in the finished product as it might  have appeared in sample photos from other building projects completed by the contractor; with some warranty against all defects and deficiencies.    The discussion is that we could not really have an economic loss without physical loss. Money is a tangible, physical asset in paper, coins or as appearing on a balance sheet but no longer appearing once lost.  The loss is never purely economic.   IT COULD CAUSE  "Gastroenteritis".     Ms. Donoghue suffered "Gastroenteritis" only when she saw the snail flow out of the bottle and into her glass during her efforts to finish the ginger carbonated drink.  

We could say the loss in Hedley and Heller,  as based on negligent advice, is economic.   But, money in its physical form was lost.   But, it is harm.  It is submitted that it might be a failure  to comply with a building code but out of respect for the Code, we would ensure compliance for the various reasons that such a code exists; possibly  higher safety standards.  Compliance involves physical repair of what non  compliance  is actually, essentially physical damage, harm and an actionable wrong; it is submitted. 

 This is very tricky when compliance with a code might mean that there should be no ice on a side walk in the winter.  You could not sue simply because there is ice on a side walk or maybe you could. You could  sue  when you notice  the ice and give the service responsible for clearing the ice a chance to remove the ice in reasonable time and if it's not removed, we might sue under a contract.  The town that built the side walk could sue in Tort if  the  people they had hired to clear the ice have not done so. It seems suing in contract is the best option.  The building manager  in the Building adjacent  to the side walk could sue in Tort as it is a municipal code failure.  But, he cannot sue in contract.  He would sue the Town in Tort maybe for lost business and that would be the harm suffered.  Lost business might be the pure economic loss that does not feel painful enough to constitute harm for the purposes of tort.  But, we can see the actionable wrong. The ice was not cleared for 3 months.  There is harm. There is loss. We do see how we accept the economic loss in the Hedley and Heller case is tortious harm suffered in a situation where the business provides and offers advice that they intend the client to follow.  We do not at SDGCK.    We read the file and tell you what is happening and how you could respond to achieve the best results. It's kind of advice but not really. 

The young lady walking  on the side walk and that eventually slips on the ice  could sue in Tort; not in contract for her physical injury  and for losses in wages as she was unable to work for a year.  

We have to accept that economic loss is harm. See Dorset Yacht v The Home Secretary where   broken windows involved the harm or injury and this was not adjudged as purely economic loss.  But there is  loss.  What if the boys had been asked to fertilise and cut the grass and used too much fertiliser, causing a Rylands and Fletcher scenario, affecting the neighbors and what if the land owner whose field was directly burned by the fertilizer had thought of suing the boys, the guards and the Home Secretary?  The broken windows, damaged with a cricket ball have to be synonymous with the shoddy tradesmen work on the fields as done by  the same boys if this work transpired in our example.  

  An unevenly paved road is harm even if no one has crashed yet  on the unevenly paved road service.  But contract law would cover such defects in work.  

🛑OOOOOOO〇O🥭🥭🥭🥭🥭🥭🥭🥭🥭🥭🥭О〇OOOOOO