heley byrne诉heller案中未探索的合同和破产法维度

IF 1.5 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

Cambridge Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1017/S0008197323000077

D. Campbell, D. Milman

{"title":"heley byrne诉heller案中未探索的合同和破产法维度","authors":"D. Campbell, D. Milman","doi":"10.1017/S0008197323000077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE UNEXPLORED CONTRACT AND INSOLVENCY LAW DIMENSIONS OF HEDLEY BYRNE V HELLER\",\"authors\":\"D. Campbell, D. Milman\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0008197323000077\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197323000077\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197323000077","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在以前的工作中，有人认为Hedley Byrne诉Heller案没有涉及实际的损害。在本案中，被告关于Easipower Ltd.的信用资料既不是错报，也不是过失提供的，一般而言，依赖过失陈述的赔偿受合同的约束要远远好于过失错报的约束。本文对Hedley Byrne案中合同对侵权行为的重要性进行了扩展，但主要认为索赔人认为的损害是由管理easypower破产的法定制度的运作造成的。这使得把Hedley Byrne看作是对“合同的秘密谬论”的必要回应变得更加难以置信。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Cambridge Law Journal LAW-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

6.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal''s range includes jurisprudence and legal history. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews.