The offence of deception to induce a contract is an offence under English law, but has been replaced in practice by actions under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. [35] Similar torts existed in the United States, but they have been replaced to some extent by contract law and the pure rule of economic loss. [36] Historically (and to some extent today), fraudulent (but not negligent[36]) misrepresentation can be awarded with damages for economic loss under the “profit of the case” rule (damages identical to damages anticipated in contracts,[36] which awards the claimant the difference between the value presented and the actual value. [36] Beginning with Stiles v. White (1846) in Massachusetts spread this rule throughout the country as a majority rule with the “direct damages” rule as the minority rule. [36] Although damages under the “benefit of the arrangement” are referred to as damages, the plaintiff is better off than before the settlement. [36] Since the economic loss rule would eliminate these benefits if strictly applied, there is an exception that does not allow misrepresentation if it is not related to a contract. [36] The English case of Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), which was revived in the United States, separated contractual and tortious damages by the foreseeability of the damage at the time of the conclusion of the contract. [47] In the United States, the purely economic loss rule was introduced to further prevent negligence claims for breach of contract. [47] This “economic loss rule” was upheld by the U.S.
Supreme Court in East River Steamship Corp v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. (1986) and spread unevenly across the country, leading to confusion. [31] Among other things, insurance companies` tort of bad faith arises from a contractual relationship and “ancillary offences” such as wrongful dismissal, which may overlap with employment contracts. [16] 20.7.1 In actions for negligence, all the usual defences of tort are available, but in the vast majority of cases, the most relevant defences are illegality, volenti non fit injuria and, most importantly, contributory negligence. For a discussion of the three defences, see Rashid Osman bin Abdul Razak v Abdul Muhaimanin bin Khairuddin and another [2013] SGHC 49. 20.2.9 In the purely economic harm case RSP Architects, Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd [1995] 3 SLR (R) 653 (Ocean Front; see section 20.3.12 below), the Court of Appeal, although not expressly applying Lord Wilberforce`s general argument, applied a two-step procedure to determine the obligation. Their honours were also awarded in Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] 1 AC 520 (Junior Books), a rarely followed decision of the House of Lords that the two-stage Anns test had been used to assert purely economic loss resulting from defective movable property in circumstances close to the contract. However, in Ocean Front, the Court ultimately based its decision on the concept of proximity, noting that there was no single rule or set of rules for determining whether a duty of care should be considered in certain circumstances. In the subsequent case of RSP Architects, Planners & Engineers v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No.
1075 and another [1999] 2 SLR(R) 134 (Eastern Lagoon), the Court of Appeal theoretically rejected the Anns test while accepting a two-step “procedure” with similar content. 20.3.13 In the P T Bumi case (see section 20.2.10 above), a case concerning an unsuccessful action concerning defective movable property, the Singapore Court of Appeal exercised extreme caution in admitting actions of management companies outside the scope of actions brought by management companies in respect of residential property. in particular if the circumstances are in principle contractually conditioned. In United Project Consultants Pte Ltd v Leong Kwok Onn [2005] 4 SLR (R) 214 (United Project Consultants; see section 20.7.3), the Court of Appeal confirmed that courts would take a more restrictive approach to deciding whether to impose due diligence on pure pecuniary damages rather than property damages. and an equally cautious approach prevailed before the Court of Appeal in the Sunny Metal case (see sections 20.2.12 above and 20.5.1 and 20.5.2 below), a contractual matrix case that raised both tort and contractual issues. In Spandeck (see section 20.2.13), the Court of Appeal held that the same two-step proximity test – based on responsibility and trust – and the same policy should be applied to all categories of claims. It acknowledged, however, that a more restrictive application might be appropriate in cases of economic damage and held that the action in the present case, which again concerned a contractual matrix, should fail. However, the existence of a contractual matrix does not necessarily prove fatal for a negligent act. In Animal Concerns (see section 20.2.13 above), the Court of Appeal found that the assumption of liability and the recourse to a claim brought by the plaintiff who had ordered a construction project against the project clerk were satisfied, despite the existence of a contract between the applicant and the project contractor.
Similarly, in Go Dante Yap (see section 20.3.9), it was found that in addition to an implied contractual obligation, a bank had a duty of care owed to its customer for negligence in the provision of financial services (although none of these obligations were actually breached). For economic loss on various issues, see Kimly (section 20.2.13 above), where the Court of Appeal held that a certifying engineer should not act as an insurer for a contractor`s legal obligations to ensure worker safety. Economic antitrust offences have been somewhat flooded by modern competition law. In the United States, however, private parties are permitted, in certain circumstances, to sue for anti-competitive practices, including under federal or state law or on the basis of unlawful interference under common law, which may be based on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766. [33] Federal laws include the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, followed by the Clayton Antitrust Act, which restricted cartels and regulated mergers and acquisitions through the Federal Trade Commission. In the European Union, Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union apply, but the admission of private antitrust enforcement actions is currently under discussion. 20.2.1 The obligation is an artificial conceptual barrier that the applicant must overcome before the application can even be reviewed.