Interpretation of past decisions Norris v Sibberas Langridge v Levy Winterbottom v Wright George v Skivington Heaven v Pender Powerpoint by Swissy, Sal dog and Mattieu

Norris v. Sibberas (1989) (The Bonnie Doon Motor Inn case) In this case, Mr and Mrs Sibberas believed they received negligent advice from their real estate agent (Mrs Norris) Mrs Norris told the couple that the motel that they were purchasing was a “goldmine” and a “once in a lifetime chance.” The couple relied on this advice, following the precedent set in the Shaddock v. Parramatta case.

The outcome (Norris v. Sibberas) The couple was awarded damages against Mrs Norris because she owned a duty of care to the couple. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision because Mrs Norris was judged the property on the grounds of her level of expertise. This is because there must be a close relationship between the two parties for negligence to exist.

1. a) What was the negligent advice given in the Norris vs Sibberas case? The negligent advice given in this case was claimed to be from Mr and Mrs Sibberas' real estate agent, Mrs Norris. Mrs Norris stated that the motel she was selling was a "goldmine" and a "once in a lifetime chance", which was proven to not be the case.

b) What did the judge decided in this case? While the trial court decided Mrs Norris owed a duty of care to Mr and Mrs Sibberas because they had relied on her advice, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.

c) In what way was the trial judge in Norris vs c) In what way was the trial judge in Norris vs. Sibberas relying on the Shaddock v. Parramatta case? The judge in Noris v Sibberas was relying on the precedent set in Shaddock v Parramatta due to the similarities in the cases - both regarding a duty of care owed by the advice giver to the advice receiver.

d) Why did the Court of Appeal reverse the decision of the original precedent? The Court of Appeal found Mrs Norris did not have special financial skills or expertise and was therefore not to be held accountable for the Sibberas' decision to buy the motel.

Langridge v. Levy (1837) Father bought a gun for use for himself and his sons. The father was told by the seller that it was made by a famous gun maker and he guaranteed safety of the gun. One of his son had his arm mutilated from an explosion in the second barrel.

The outcome (Langridge v. Levy) The son couldn’t make a claim because he did not purchase the gun so he wasn’t legally in the contract The courts decided that because the son wasn’t in the contract so he wouldn’t be successful but the seller would have to pay some sort of compensation. The court ruled that the seller must pay compensation because a type of fraud had been committed. The seller knew the gun was faulty and made a false claim.

Winterbottom v. Wright (1842) A mail deliver driver had been injured in a fall from a coach as a result of the coach being faulty. The post-mail general had a contract with the supplier that the general would keep the coaches safe. The injury was caused from a breach of contract.

The outcome (Winterbottom v. Wright) The driver claimed compensation from the post-master general. The court decided that he would not be successful because he was part of the initial contract between the post-master general and the supplier. The court looked back at the Langridge v. Levy case but distinguished that in this case there was no fraud committed like there was in Langridge v. Levy.

George v. Skivington (1869) The man bought shampoo for his wife. His wife suffered loss of hair and a scalp disorder. The wife was not involved in the contract so was not able to make a claim against the shampoo company.

The outcome (George v. Skivington) The court said that the duty under contract should extend to those who to whom the seller knew would be using the product. One judge substituted the word negligence for fraud and maintained the circumstances were close enough to the Langridge v. Levy case to follow the same decision.

4. How did George v. Skivington follow the Langridge v. Levy case? The George v. Skivington case follows the Langridge v. Levy case because the plaintiff was successful on the grounds that the manufacturer knew the product was made negligently and was going to be used by someone other than the purchaser.

Heaven v. Pender (1883) In this case, a ship’s painter (Heaven) was injured when the ships platform collapsed because it was faulty. The painter was employed by Gray who had a contract with the ships owner (Pender). Pender had a contract with Gray to supply a platform but did not have a contract with Gray.

The outcome (Heaven v. Pender) In this case there was no act of fraud so the precedent set in the Langridge v. Levy case did not apply. The case was however seen similar to Heaven v. Pender because the supplier knew that it would used by someone not part of the contract. The plaintiff was successful because a duty of care was owed to the person who was using the platform, especially if it was an employee.

5. What was the relevance of Heaven v. Pender? The relevance of the Heaven v. Pender case was obiter dictum. Which is general obligation of duty of care.