Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The Unexplored Contract and Insolvency Law Dime...


Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The Unexplored Contract and Insolvency Law Dimensions of Hedley Byrne v Heller

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

<mark>Journal publication date</mark>31/03/2023
<mark>Journal</mark>Cambridge Law Journal
Issue number1
Number of pages25
Pages (from-to)58-82
Publication StatusPublished
<mark>Original language</mark>English


It has been argued in previous work that Hedley Byrne v Heller addressed no actual mischief. In the case itself, the defendant's credit reference about Easipower Ltd. was neither a misstatement nor negligently given, and in general the indemnification of reliance on negligent statements is far better regulated by contract than it can possibly be by negligent misstatement. This paper expands on the significance of contract relative to tort in Hedley Byrne, but mainly argues that the mischief perceived by the claimant was caused by the operation of the statutory regime regulating Easipower's insolvency. This makes regarding Hedley Byrne as a necessary response to “the privity of contract fallacy” even more implausible.