The House Of Lords Held That There Was Sufficient Proximity Between Junior Books And Veitchi To Establish A Duty Of Care And No Reason To Restrict That Duty.
Junior books contracted with a business to lay a composite flooring in their. The floor was defective but as there was only a contract between junior books and the main contractor there was no relationship in contract through which junior books could sue veitchi,. Pure economic loss from defective property is recoverable where there is a sufficiently proximate relationship (now.
Firstly, The Decisions Open The Floodgates To.
Relying on junior books v. Ltd., defenders in an action for damages by the respondents, junior books ltd., from a decision dated september 1, 1980, of the second division of the court. In laying the composition floor the defenders used too wet.
You Don't Have Any Books Yet.
The decisions in anns v merton london borough council [1978] and junior books v veitchi [1983] have been heavily criticised. The house of lords held that there was sufficient proximity between junior books and veitchi to establish a duty of care and no reason to restrict that duty. The house of lords accepted that.
Junior Books V Veitchi Co Ltd:
This appeal arises in an action in which junior books limited are thepursuers and the veitchi company limited are the defenders. The floor was defective but as there was only a contract between junior books and the main contractor there was no relationship in contract through which junior books could sue veitchi,. 27 which, he submitted, was a case on all fours with the present case and distinguished the case of junior books ltd.
This Was An Appeal By Veitchi Co.
The defects meant that juniorbooks ltd would have high ongoing maintenance costs. Junior books limited (respondents) v. Both are scottish cases and both are interlocutory cases dealing with a motion (or its scots equivalent) to strike out the pursuer's claim as.