Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:31:52 +0800
Low Fatt Kin Kelvin
Reasonable Reliance Case
think the trial judgment stands.
para 40, it is stated that: "Given Avco's decision not to cross-appeal,
the appellant is correct in saying that the judgment in his favour is
not open to review on this appeal."
at para 45, it is stated that: "For these reasons, I would dismiss the
appeal with costs, ..."
the appeal is simply dismissed and the trial judge's order does not appear
to have been varied, this, read together with para 40, suggests that the
trial judgment stands.
National University of Singapore
Sent: 22 April 2003 06:09
Subject: ODG: Reasonable Reliance Case
am having difficulty figuring out what the actual decision in AVCO
was. At trial the negligent statement claim against AVCO succeeded,
but the plaintiff was held 50% contributorily negligent. This judgment
had the effect of reducing the plaintiff's obligations to AVCO under
the mortgage covenant.
plaintiff appealed the contributory negligence finding. The defendant
AVCO did not cross-appeal from the decision holding it liable for negligent
statement. Nevertheless, in response to the plaintiff's appeal it argued
that the trial judge was wrong in holding it liable for negligent misrepresentation
since the plaintiff's reliance was unreasonable and hence no duty was
owed. The Court of Appeal agreed that the plaintiff's reliance was not
reasonable and hence no duty was owed. It therefore dismissed the plaintiff's
appeal re its own contributory negligence.
did this holding automatically lead to the complete dismissal of the
plaintiff's action for neg statement even though the defendant did not
actually ever appeal this? Or does the original trial judgment stand,
even though the Court of Appeal thought it was wrong?
I will have more on the merits of the argument later once I get this
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next