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

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

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

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

The Unexplored Contract and Insolvency Law Dimensions of Hedley Byrne v Heller. / Campbell, David; Milman, David.
In: Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 82, No. 1, 31.03.2023, p. 58-82.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Campbell, D & Milman, D 2023, 'The Unexplored Contract and Insolvency Law Dimensions of Hedley Byrne v Heller', Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 58-82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197323000077

APA

Campbell, D., & Milman, D. (2023). The Unexplored Contract and Insolvency Law Dimensions of Hedley Byrne v Heller. Cambridge Law Journal, 82(1), 58-82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197323000077

Vancouver

Campbell D, Milman D. The Unexplored Contract and Insolvency Law Dimensions of Hedley Byrne v Heller. Cambridge Law Journal. 2023 Mar 31;82(1):58-82. doi: 10.1017/S0008197323000077

Author

Campbell, David ; Milman, David. / The Unexplored Contract and Insolvency Law Dimensions of Hedley Byrne v Heller. In: Cambridge Law Journal. 2023 ; Vol. 82, No. 1. pp. 58-82.

Bibtex

@article{d2a9f2d1bc5d4ca49a036b2f0fe1112f,
title = "The Unexplored Contract and Insolvency Law Dimensions of Hedley Byrne v Heller",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "negligent misstatement, privity of contract fallacy, insolvency law, intervention, judicial legislation",
author = "David Campbell and David Milman",
year = "2023",
month = mar,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1017/S0008197323000077",
language = "English",
volume = "82",
pages = "58--82",
journal = "Cambridge Law Journal",
issn = "0008-1973",
publisher = "Stevens & Sons",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Unexplored Contract and Insolvency Law Dimensions of Hedley Byrne v Heller

AU - Campbell, David

AU - Milman, David

PY - 2023/3/31

Y1 - 2023/3/31

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - negligent misstatement

KW - privity of contract fallacy

KW - insolvency law

KW - intervention

KW - judicial legislation

U2 - 10.1017/S0008197323000077

DO - 10.1017/S0008197323000077

M3 - Journal article

VL - 82

SP - 58

EP - 82

JO - Cambridge Law Journal

JF - Cambridge Law Journal

SN - 0008-1973

IS - 1

ER -