Legal Case Study
Q1 Advise Brad as to his rights against the University of Kew
Brad could sue the University of Kew in negligence, contract and misleading.少写了consumer contract
Action against University of Kew in negligence
Pure economic loss
In this case, Brad suffered pure economic loss. Brad completed the course but finally did not become either a CPA or CA on the basis of his Doctor of Accountancy course. Besides, he could have earned $300,000 a year as a management consultant. What is worse, he went to his former job which salary is still $200,000 and spent two years study and obtained no help for increasing the salaries. Overall, he suffered financial loss from the negligent misstatement.
To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
• the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care
• the defendant has failed to comply with the required standard of care
• there has been material damage to the plaintiff
• damage caused by the defendant is not too remote
Duty of care
As, for the first time, demonstrated in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson , negligence may exist despite there being no direct relationship between two parties. After the Shaddock’s Case , the duty of care was extended to include the giving of information. In general, defendant will owe the plaintiff a duty of care if, at the time of making the statement, the defendant knows that:
• the statement will be communicated to the plaintiff; and
• the plaintiff will be very likely to rely on the statement in deciding whether to enter into a transaction; and
• there is a risk that the plaintiff will suffer financial loss if the statement is incorrect.
In this case, The university owed Brad a duty of care.
Firstly, Brad studied for two years in the University of Kew, which proves their close relationship.
Secondly, Brad was attracted by the most important statement in the advertisement that he could become a CPA or CA as what the university alleged by entering the
Brad could sue the University of Kew in negligence, contract and misleading.少写了consumer contract
Action against University of Kew in negligence
Pure economic loss
In this case, Brad suffered pure economic loss. Brad completed the course but finally did not become either a CPA or CA on the basis of his Doctor of Accountancy course. Besides, he could have earned $300,000 a year as a management consultant. What is worse, he went to his former job which salary is still $200,000 and spent two years study and obtained no help for increasing the salaries. Overall, he suffered financial loss from the negligent misstatement.
To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:
• the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care
• the defendant has failed to comply with the required standard of care
• there has been material damage to the plaintiff
• damage caused by the defendant is not too remote
Duty of care
As, for the first time, demonstrated in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson , negligence may exist despite there being no direct relationship between two parties. After the Shaddock’s Case , the duty of care was extended to include the giving of information. In general, defendant will owe the plaintiff a duty of care if, at the time of making the statement, the defendant knows that:
• the statement will be communicated to the plaintiff; and
• the plaintiff will be very likely to rely on the statement in deciding whether to enter into a transaction; and
• there is a risk that the plaintiff will suffer financial loss if the statement is incorrect.
In this case, The university owed Brad a duty of care.
Firstly, Brad studied for two years in the University of Kew, which proves their close relationship.
Secondly, Brad was attracted by the most important statement in the advertisement that he could become a CPA or CA as what the university alleged by entering the