• Print
  • negligent misrepresentation accounts for 11 out of 811 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

BG Checo International Ltd v British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 SCR 12

Concurrency rule: If the tort duty is not contradicted by the contract, it remains intact and may be sued upon.

Candler v Crane Christmas & Co [1951] 2 kb 164 (CA)

No, because precedent implicitly denies the sufficiency of mere negligent misrepresentation short of fraud and because finding such a duty would be enormous and seriously discourage experts from publishing.

Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 (HL)

No, the auditor’s duty to shareholders is limited to their present interest in the company.

Glanzer v Shephard 135 NE 275 (NYCA 1921)

Yes, because it is clearly known by the contractor that the sole aim of their action is to induce certain act on the part of P.

Haig v Bamford et al [1977] 1 SCR 466, 72 DLR (3d) 68

an accountant need only have actual knowledge of the limited class that will use and rely on her statements to give rise to a duty of care.

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd, [1964] AC 465

A duty of care can arise with respect to careless statements that cause pure economic loss (obiter)

As noted later, in Queen v Cognos Inc, [1993] 1 SCR 87, the Hedley Byrne test has 5 general requirements:
** 1. There must be a duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee.
** 2. The representation in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading.
** 3. The representor must have acted negligently in making said misrepresentation.
** 4. The representee must have relied in a reasonable manner, on said negligent misrepresentation.
** 5. The reliance must have been detrimental to the representee in the sense that damages resulted.

Hercules Managements Ltd v Ernst & Young [1997] 2 SCR 165

If Step 1 of Anns Test is made out, duty will be negated for auditors by unlimited liability concern unless it can be shown not to apply, e.g. because D knew of P, and damage arose from specific transaction.

Hummingbird Motors Ltd v Hobbs [1986] RTR 276

Amateurs are more likely to get away with qualifying facts as opinions.
An innocent but inaccurate statement if an accurate representation of party's knowledge and belief cannot amount to a misrepresentation.
A mere statement of opinion which proves to have been unfounded will not be treated as misrepresentation.

Queen v Cognos

Not restricted to information professionals, but any relationship where one has voluntarily assumed responsibility for the accuracy of their statements knowing full well that the other is likely to rely on it to their detriment.

Queen v Cognos Inc, [1993] 1 SCR 87

The Hedley Byrne test for negligent misrepresentation applies to representations made by an employer to a prospective employee in the course of an interview.

Ultramares v Touche 174 NE 441 (NYCA 1931)

No, because it would expose accountants to an indeterminate amount of liability to an indeterminate class of people for an indeterminate time.