Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock

Marine Co Ltd [1996] HoL

You are required to do a case summary not exceeding 250 words on
the above case with emphasis on Lord Steyn judgement.
For the most part, in the case above-mentioned on Lord Steyn which that have two points.
Firstly, those repairs which would prejudice the maintenance of classification if not dealt with
within a specified time. In the judgement, it was stated that the claimant owed no duty of
care. However, while classification organisations are available to provide technical support to
other parties, and do so on occasion, the directions for a vessel's survey are issued by the
owners. As a result, the claimant has a duty of care to his ship and the cargo that was lost.
One of the most crucial things to keep in mind is the law's fundamentally different approach
to the various types of damage that one party may have experienced as a result of another's
acts or omissions. It's one thing to owe a duty of care to avoid injuring other people or their
property. It's another thing entirely to prevent causing others to incur simply financial losses.
Secondly, those repairs which, since they do not affect seaworthiness, may be left to the
owner's convenience. From my view of point, because the weather at sea is unpredictable, it
is impossible to predict the weather when sailing. As a result, if they sign a more reasonable
contract, the claimant may be able to pay for the loss. It would be unfair and wrong to let the
claimant bear sole responsibility.

Murphy v Brentwood District Council

[1990] HoL
You are required to do a case summary not exceeding 1500 words
on the above case with emphasis on Law Lords judgement in the
case.
Generally speaking, the defendant did exist duty of care which cannot be negligence. The
defendant should check the property before construct whether there is any issue. This is a
duty of care for defendant, claimant should can claim for the damages. In the case above-
mentioned on Lord Mackay of Clashfern L.C. said that, if an occupier of defective premises
suffered personal damage as a result of a latent defect in those premises, liability for personal
injury would apply to a local authority tasked with the public law duty of supervising
compliance with the applicable building byelaws or regulations in the event of a failure to
carry out such duty effectively. Hence, when damage to the residence has occurred, posing a
current or impending threat to the health or safety of those who live there. I agree that the
defendant has a duty of care, The defendant party is responsible for the victims' losses to
preserve their interests. and the need to achieve fairness and justice. This is not an act of
negligence, but rather a lack of forethought. Who are they going to hold liable if an injury
occurs? As a result, the claimant is justified in making a compensation offer.

As a rule, Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728, long lessees occupying
maisonettes built on inadequate foundations not complying with relevant building regulations
may be liable in negligence if the authority failed to discover the inadequacy of the
foundations before they were covered over, based on the authority's failure to discover the
inadequacy of the foundations through inspection before they were covered over. The case
stemmed from a preliminary issue of whether the plaintiffs had a right of action against the
local government, and the damages sought by them were not indicated in the pleadings.
However, it appeared that such damages would include the cost of correcting structural flaws
and supporting the block of maisonettes' foundations. This is definitely an unpublished
incident. This case also involves real estate. Only this time, it was because a negligent duty of
care was available. In Donoghue v Stevenson of it is difficult to accept the notion of
culpability for damage to person or property caused by a latent fault in a carelessly
constructed object for the cost of fixing a defect in such an article that is ex hypothesi no
longer latent. The two cases listed above are only examples and proof provided by Lord Keith
of Kinkel to support the original case. As a result, the focus remains on the original case. The
examples above also show how ignorance and culpability can result in the loss of one's own
property and safety. In my opinion, the plaintiff's right to claim for pure economic loss
unrelated to bodily harm did not extend beyond the situation in which the damage was
sustained due to irresponsible behaviour. Is the defendant, though, fulfilling his or her
responsibilities to investigate the problem? Are they following the advice of experienced
consulting engineers and thereby meeting this obligation? Given the foregoing, it is clear that
the defendant is the issue.

Thirdly, Lord Bridge of Harwich, his viewpoints are similar to his friend. In the same way,
he had given a few points to proof of argument. Dangerous defects and defects of quality, if a
building is so close to the building owner's land's boundaries that it remains a potential source
of injury to people or property after the dangerous condition is discovered. The relative
positions of the builder and the local authority which that there are evidence prove that it was
negligently in Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC, their possible tort responsibility is coextensive
with the builder's. Imminent danger to health or safety mentioned that it appears to be an odd
outcome that the building owner is without recourse in this circumstance, given that he would
have been entitled to recover the full cost of repairs from the local authorities if the problem
had been identified before the structure collapsed. According to me, liability for economic
loss is the most important thing which that in terms of the claimant's property interest, he
should assert the right to the interest that should have been his. These could be compelling
social policy grounds for holding the government responsible. Lord Ackner had stated that he
allowed the view of them.

On the contrary, in the judgement stated that it is predictable bodily harm or property
damage that supports monetary compensation for a consumer or user who is able to avoid
such loss. Hence, always mentioned that the defendant under duty of care and then failing to
carry out their responsibilities. The focus remains on Anns situation, which can only be
utilised as a model due to the similarities in circumstances. The local authority failed to
ensure building work correctly followed the plans, resulting in shallow foundations. The
building had changed many owners until the claimant started to notice cracks appearing. The
builders had gone out of business, so the claimant sued the local authority. In fact, numerous
issues have occurred, and the structure has a few weaknesses. But it was wrongly decided.
The defendant city council owed the claimant no responsibility to take reasonable precautions
to protect him from pure economic loss, which was not caused by a damage to person or
health. According to the evidence in the preceding case, neglect can result in serious
consequences. There are also others who use neglect as an excuse to avoid taking
responsibility for their actions. The basis of negligence is that both parties' interests must be
protected by a duty of care and a contract. No one will seek recompense in the future if you
believe you can get away with it when anything goes wrong. The rights that were supposed to
be there have been hidden.