Is the current state of the law satisfactory in the way it deals with Essay

Is the current state of the law satisfactory in the way it deals with the right to claim in tort or contract for pure economic l - Essay Example Damages delivered for negligent misrepresentation are especially prominent and examines whether the law’s stance on damages for misrepresentation is satisfactory, or unnecessarily contradictory. This paper explores these queries and ultimately demonstrates that the present forms of misrepresentation are unique, complementary, and rational. The court may sometimes decline to find a duty in tort in cases where parties are within a contractual relationship or may hold that a term of a contract has barred or limited what would be a tortuous duty, pre-contractual events such as misrepresentation may give rise to an action in tort. Moreover, it is apparent that, in numerous cases exhibited by negligent failure by professionals to perform their undertakings as per the expectations of their clients, a defendant may be legally responsible for the same claimant in both tort and contract (Wright 22). Voluntary Assumption of Liability A blanket denial of liability can be considered improp er, and the law remain engaged in pursuit of a new basis of practical, limited liability in tort for the incurred losses. The English Law seeks the means to limit liability in Negligence in which, under the initial design of this tort would only hinge on proof of foreseeable harm. Within the English law, the notion of assumption of liability is now expressly utilized as an autonomous basis for a Duty of Care in Negligence (Mulcahy and Tillotson 7). Voluntary assumption of liability details the notion that naturally belongs to the prefecture of the law of contract and forms the foundation of contractual liability. Whereas it is apparent that it is difficult to have a contract devoid of assumption of liability by the parties, the contrary is not obvious as the law should only award effect to an assumption of liability in case there is an enforceable Contract (Mulcahy and Tillotson 8). Allowing for the assumption of liability to operate as the grounds for extra-contractual liability ca n remedy the injustice. Moreover, although, the parameters detailed in the formation of a valid Contract are reasonably wide the restrictions obliged within a legal system on liability in Tort (limitation of claims in time and narrowly defined vicarious liability) may not permit the fair treatment of claims emanating out of direct dealings between the parties within circumstances in which a valid contract cannot be interfered (Wright 23). The assumption of liability may be employed as the grounds of extra-contractual liability so as to avail a means of limitation of liability for complex forms of negligent harm. The notion of assumption of responsibility as the grounds for extra-contractual, first came into manifestation within the English law in line with claims for compensation of forms of non-intentional harm such as pure economic loss. These forms of harm are complex to compensate, and the main difficulty emanates from serious policy objections to the compensation, grounded on t heir possibility of lack of specificity creates a risk of liability beyond what the courts can practically oblige the defendant and society to honour in absorbing the losses (Nicholas 417). Background The law of negligence can be considered as a reasonably recent development of the English Law. The notion of voluntary assumption of responsibility outside a Contract first gained prominence in English law in connection with claims regarding the claims for the compensation of