Английская Википедия:Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Версия от 23:13, 29 февраля 2024; EducationBot (обсуждение | вклад) (Новая страница: «{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}} {{short description|Law case}} {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} {{Infobox court case | name = Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC | court = Court of Appeal | image = File:Bognor_Regis_-_geograph.org.uk_-_537839.jpg | caption = Bognor Regis | date decided = | full name = Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council | citations = [1972] 1 QB 373, [1972] 2...»)
(разн.) ← Предыдущая версия | Текущая версия (разн.) | Следующая версия → (разн.)
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Use dmy dates Шаблон:Infobox court case

Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council [1972] 1 QB 373 is an English contract law and English tort law case concerning defective premises and the limits of contract damages. It was disapproved by the House of Lords in Murphy v Brentwood DC and is now bad law[1] except in Canada and New Zealand.[2]

Facts

Mrs Dutton sought to recover damages from a builder, Bognor Regis Building Co Ltd, and the local council, Bognor Regis Urban District Council, which had certified her house was sound after it emerged that the foundations of her house were defective because it had been built on a rubbish tip. That would have been discoverable if proper checks had been made. Mrs Dutton had bought the building from a Mr Clark, who, in turn, had bought the building from the builder and so Mrs Dutton had no direct contract with either the builder or the council. She settled the claim with the builder for £625 after getting advice that an action in negligence could not succeed, but she continued in an action against the council, and Cusack J awarded damages £2,115. The council appealed.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Dutton could recover money from the council as an extension of the principle in Donoghue v Stevenson. It was fair and reasonable that the council should be liable to a later purchaser of a house that its surveyor had negligently certified to be sound.

Lord Denning MR's judgment went as follows:

Шаблон:Cquote

Critique

Denning essentially argues (not unlike noblesse oblige) that if an inspector has a statutory right to inspect the property under construction, he thereby acquires a duty of care to inspect carefully. That is to say: a person who has a right has duties attached to that right. But jurists Mickey Dias and Hohfeld have shown that rights and duties are jural correlatives.[3] That is to say: if someone has a right, someone else owes a duty to them. So here, the inspector has a right (to inspect), and the builder has a duty to let them inspect. The later Murphy v Brentwood DC case revealed Denning's reasoning in Dutton to be flawed.Шаблон:Original research inline

See also

Шаблон:Clist privity

Notes

Шаблон:Reflist

Партнерские ресурсы
Криптовалюты
Магазины
Хостинг
Разное

  1. ↑ [1991] UKHL 2, [1991] 1 AC 398
  2. ↑ [2012] [1], [2012]
  3. ↑ Dias - "Jurisprudence"
Источник — http://wikihandbk.com/ruwiki/index.php?title=Английская_Википедия:Dutton_v_Bognor_Regis_UDC&oldid=14409105