Economic loss

Economic Loss is a potential injury that may arise in Delict cases.

Pure economic loss
In general terms, "Pure economic loss" is not considered an actionable injury in delict, that is to say if a purchased item is faulty, but the fault cases no further damage except to the item itself, there is no action in delict (there may however be a claim in contract), as such the duty of care in such cases is found not to have a duty of care for such claims.

However there are some cases where this can apply

Careles Misrepresentation
In Hedley Byrne and Co v Heller and Partners, the courts were asked to examine a case where Hedley Byrne did business with a third party company on the basis of a positive reference from Heller and Partners. Whilst Hedley were not successful in this case, the court did accept the possibility that if a special relationship, akin to a contract existed and the defender knew their advice would be used in such a manner, then there is the possibility of a valid claim.

This was examined further in Caparo v Dickman where shareholders who relied upon a faulty audit in their investment decisions attempted to sue the auditor. It was found not to be fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the auditor to everyone (even though it was foreseeable that their advice would be used that way) due to the lack of any special (contract like) relationship between the shareholders and the auditor; it might however be imposed if the auditor knew the report would be communicated and knew it would be for that purpose.

In Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd it was held that where a person voluntarily assumes responsibility for the economic interest of another, knowing that the other party is relying upon it, then the duty of care exists.

Defective performance of a contract

 * See also: Inducement to breach a contract for intentional breaches of contract and [harm by unlawful means] for third party intentional delicts.

In Junior books v Veitchi Co Lid, the court dealt with a situation where Juniour had contracted with a company called Ogilvie for some building work, who had then subcontracted the flooring work to Veitchi, who had laid it defectively. Whilst the work was defective, it had caused no other harm, and thus seemed to come under the area of pure economic loss (the cost to correct the floor). Whilst the most straightforward course of action would be for Juniour to sue Ogilvie, and Olgilvie to in turn sue Veitchi (both in contract) ; however a duty of care was found to prevent loss to Junior Books. This was on the basis that the defenders had a contract to lay the floor, knew that Junior would be relying on the floor, that their skills were being relied upon by the per suers, and that they must have known that this was the case, and that any defects would be at some time corrected at a financial cost.

This duty only arises in a situation like this where there is a chain of contracts where the end contractor knows the head employer - otherwise as pure economic loss it is unclaimable. As established in cases like Murphy v Brentwood district council, it is established where A performs a contract with B to a substandard level (such as say, laying foundation) and B sells the property on to C, C has no claim to A for the pure economic loss.

Secondary Economic Loss
Employers are not owed a duty of care regarding their employees, as shown in Reavis v Clan Line Steamers Ltd; Ms Reavis employed an orchestra who sailed with Clan Line Steamers, she was unable to claim for loss of earnings from the orchestra.

Only the owner of the property damaged is usually able to sue, in Dynamo v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts, the owner of a factory who lost income due to a power cut caused by an excavator was unable to sue as there was no duty of care.