Billy Jean Owed Donald & Co: Duty Of Care

It is highly unlikely that a court would find that Billy Jean owed Donald and Co a duty of care to avoid the purely economic loss. Pure economic loss is described as financial, monetary loss generally attributed to ‘damage’ to an individuals ‘wallet’. For a claim to be valid and considered the steps to pursue a cause of action in negligence must be followed, the first of which is establishing a duty of care owed, in this case by Billie Jean to Donald & co. In this case it is found that no duty of care is owed and thus no claim for compensation can be lodged. In an attempt to establish a duty of care the plaintiff must be deemed vulnerable under the salient factors, the plaintiff being Donald & Co which in this case are not vulnerable. This characterisation of non-vulnerability is derived from the class of sale of the property as well as numerous general assumptions as to the experience of Donald & Co. It is expected under the assumption of Caveat Emptor as well as for the magnitude of purchase that Donald & Co have access to the building records and history of inexperienced builder Billie Jean as well as the financial status of

One would expect the creation of a contract between Billie Jean and Donald & Co at the time of sale from Sergei include certain warranties or liabilities regarding the scope of responsibility Billie Jean would take on in regards to the discovery of possible latent defects or an assignment of rights because it is understood that without such assurances builders do not owe a duty of care to subsequent owners. Under such contract it would also be possible, although fruitless, to apportion liability to Sergei or possible the certifier as negligent for selling the works done, both of which depend upon the indemnity insurance they hold as well as their knowledge of such