Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:13:34 -0400
Esser v. Brown
case is attached for your perusal. The more I think about it,
the more I think it is damage to property. In most pure economic
loss cases either: (1) the persons property right is unimpaired
but their complaint is that for whatever reason, the value of their
right was diminished; or (2) they are complaining because their
use of something which was not theirs has been interfered with.
Here the complaint is different, it is that her rights have been
extinguished (subtracted from her patrimony), which seems to be
might find it interesting that the court in Esser distinguished
Penn v Bristol on the basis that in Penn the lawyer
purported to act for the "third party".
Surely it must be pure economic loss. There's no physical interference
Oddly enough English courts have (as I expect you know) gone the
other way on the duty of care. See Penn v Bristol & West,
Times, 22/5/1995; Al-Sabah v Ali  ECGS 11.
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next