The End Of A Builder’s Concurrent Liability In Contract And Tort? (2)

Concurrent LiabilityOne particular frequently hears the term ‘joint tortfeasors’ in relation to claims involving a number of defendants. The question was no matter whether a contractor, having entered into a contract with its employer, could owe a duty of care in tort not to bring about financial loss and hence be liable to the employer for a longer limitation period At the time of Murphy v Brentwood, most individuals would most likely have answered no” to the question and (save for individual injury or harm to other property) it seemed the law of tort was dead as regards developing contracts.

Section five and section two of the Limitation Act 1980 state that the limitation period for an action in basic contract or tort, respectively, is six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued”. The final crucial distinction is that the applicability of statutes relating to contribution and apportionment among concurrent wrongdoers might depend on no matter if both wrongdoers are tortfeasors, or regardless of whether one particular is a tortfeasor and one particular merely in breach of contract (Feldthusen, pg 99). Tort: the plaintiff is to be place in the position it would have been in had the misrepresentation not been made.

For instance, in the building contract, if it is specified that a developing would have a certain feature and did not once constructed or in the solicitor’s contract it was agreed that assistance would be offered on a distinct aspect and it was not. If a offered wrong does supply for concurrent liability, then the plaintiff will have a decision as to how to frame the action.

The sensible implication of the difference in accrual date is varying limitation commencement dates for tort and contract which can have a important effect on the expiry of limitation in a number of situations. Right here, the parties are unlikely to sue in tort, considering that they could not recover in tort for the higher contractual duty (BG Checo, para 17).

The courts traditionally appear at the view that the correct part of tort is to compensate those who have produced a loss…study far more. The mere fact that the parties have dealt with a matter expressly in their contract does not imply that they intended to exclude the proper to sue in tort. Claims for defective or poorly performed building function have in the previous been generally produced both in contract and beneath the common law of tort” (or delict” as it is known in Scotland) which imposes liability for certain negligent acts. Concurrent tortious liability can at times supply an advantage more than contractual liability.