Relational economic loss is a term used to describe the economic harm that a person suffers as a result of the damage to or loss of a personal or professional relationship. This type of loss is not easily quantifiable in monetary terms, as it is not directly tied to a tangible asset or financial transaction. However, it can have significant impacts on an individual's financial well-being and overall quality of life.
There are a variety of situations in which relational economic loss may occur. For example, a person may suffer relational economic loss as a result of the breakdown of a business partnership or the loss of a job. In these cases, the individual may experience a reduction in income or other financial benefits that were previously derived from the relationship.
Additionally, relational economic loss may occur as a result of personal relationships, such as the breakdown of a marriage or the death of a loved one. In these cases, the loss of companionship and emotional support can have significant impacts on an individual's mental health and overall well-being. This can lead to decreased productivity and financial strain, as the individual may need to seek professional counseling or other forms of support to cope with the loss.
Relational economic loss can be particularly challenging to quantify and address in a legal context. Since it is not tied to a specific financial transaction or asset, it can be difficult to assign a monetary value to the loss. However, some legal frameworks do recognize the concept of relational economic loss and allow for its consideration in certain types of cases. For example, in some jurisdictions, individuals may be able to recover damages for the loss of companionship or emotional support in cases of wrongful death or personal injury.
Overall, relational economic loss is a complex and often overlooked aspect of financial harm that can have significant impacts on an individual's well-being and quality of life. It is important for individuals to be aware of the potential for relational economic loss and to take steps to protect themselves and their relationships, particularly in the context of business and personal relationships.
Relational Economic Loss: An Integrated Economic Justification for the Exclusionary Rule
Predictability To what extent can legal advisers predict the likely outcome of relational economic loss claims and has the removal of the exclusionary rule preventing any recovery for purely economic losses, opened a vast unchartered area of uncertain claims? Union Oil Company v Oppen 1974 501 F 2d 558, 569,570,571. Householders - suffer economic loss as they had to purchase alternative equipment for activities 3. The fundamental tension for courts in cases of relational economic loss is between doing justice to a claimant whose economic loss has been caused through a wrong delict of the defendant, and the exposure of a defendant tortfeasor to claims far outweighing the wrong done. These policy issues and the special relationship just mentioned are discussed below. Held: No liability on D in regards of the flood.
Economic Loss: Relational Economic Loss Flashcards by Joey Gan
There must be an acknowledgement of policy considerations such as indeterminate liability and unreasonable infringements on the autonomy of the defendant. Bow Valley demonstrates, in contrast to the divergent judgments of Perre, that it is possible to adopt a generally applicable methodology governing all negligence cases; whilst at the same time recognising that there may be different categories of pure economic loss for which different factors may be particularly relevant. Assumption of absolute exclusory rule against recovery was rejected. This case: P was a contractor who had been engaged to work on property. Say if the information had been used to invest in the customer's business rather than extending credit in the casino. An analysis of the case law where claims are made for relational economic loss indicate that, absent any concern of indeterminate liability, policy issues of economic efficiency, availability of alternate means of protection to the victim, unwarranted interference in commercial activity, have not prevented recovery of relational loss.
B.3
The conflict argument is what made no DOC owed. The task this week is to understand which of the policy concerns that we discussed last week are most central in this particular category of pure economic loss case; to understand the criteria governing the duty question; and to critically consider whether the boundaries of liability are currently drawn in the right place. Conversely, while the legal underpinnings of Bow Valley are contentious, on balance, it is argued that its uniform methodological approach promotes a far greater level of clarity and consistency in the law. The answer lies in an analysis of the body of precedent of claims for relational loss. Policy Issues in Relational Economic Loss Claims Indeterminate Liability In those cases in the United States, The corollary of this is that in those instances where the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen relational economic loss to any specific individual or limited class but only to an unascertained or indeterminate number of persons and the plaintiff was a member of that unascertained class, then the claim has been rejected.
Relational economic loss essay sample
Some person at the depo forgot to turn the tap off when they were filling the vast tanks of aviation fuel. The modern law governing the duty question is then considered in the following section, where some of the cases are extracted and discussed in more detail. But has the rejection of the exclusionary rule in favour of allowing recovery of relational economic loss in limited circumstances, resulted in uncertainty and an inability of legal advisers to predict a likely outcome? In examining the more recent judgements of Perre4 and Bow Valley5, this paper compares the judicial evolution of both countries in an area described as "the cutting edge of the law of torts. Feed lot operators people responsible for feeding cows. In the reformulated Hedley Byrne principle, reliance plays a weaker, more passive role, meaning no more than the claimant hopes and expects the defendant to carefully manage the claimant's affairs.
Topic 5 Relational Economic Loss
Gaudron J - Perre Case: McMullin v ICI Note: this case does not fit exactly into the Perre approach - D produced a pesticide that got into the cattle food chain - Movement of contaminated cattle was banned - The cattle weren't actually sick or injured so this was a case of economic loss Claimants: 1 - owners of contaminated cattle 2 - purchasers of already contaminated cattle 3 - purchasers of contaminated cattle 4 - Feed lot operators who had to continue feeding detained contaminated cattle 5 - owners of non-contaminated cattle detained on suspicion 6 - Transporters of cattle feed 7 - Exporters of cattle losing business Held: P's 1-4 were able to recover on the basis that they had actually contact with contaminated cattle NOTE: P's 2 and 3 could recover on the basis of transferred loss so no indeterminacy Case: Perre v Apand - P's 1-4 were owners and operators of plants within the 20km range - P 5 were truck drivers who lost business Held: P's 1-4 able to recover 1 Reasonably foreseeable 2 No indeterminacy because - P's 1-4 were first line claimants P 5 was second ripple - They were an ascertainable and specific class 3 No burden on autonomy because D already owed a duty to Sparnon 4 P's 1-4 were vulnerable because they didn't know of the risk and couldn't protect themselves 5 Knowledge - D ought to have known of P as a member of an ascertainable class that would be affected, by simply looking at a map 6 No conflict with statutory duties or contracts Case: Johnson Tiles v Esso Australia - D was the operator of a gas station in Vic - One of the employees negligently caused an explosion and many were without gas - D normally contracted to distributor Gascor, who sold to retailers, who sold to customers P Claimants: 1 - 43,000 Business customers 2 - 1. Middle In Norsk, McLachlin J23 flexibly applied the two-step test of liability formulated by Lord Wilberforce in Anns. They sought to claim additional costs of shipping fuel. Her judgement was criticised primarily because this made the potential scope of recovery dangerously wide. Proximity requires some special relationship between the defendant and the person suffering relational economic loss, one which goes beyond mere contractual or non-contractual dependence on the damaged property. D should have known that there was a company that was economically reliant on the first company.
