n South African Law Journal - Limitless liability - Tokoloshe or real danger? Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development
|Article Title||Limitless liability - Tokoloshe or real danger? Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development|
|© Publisher:||Juta Law Publishing|
|Journal||South African Law Journal|
|Affiliations||1 Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University|
|Publication Date||Jan 2015|
|Pages||22 - 31|
The question of pure economic loss in delict has always been problematic because of the oft-expressed fear of limitless liability. There is a long history of cautious development of this area of the law. In Administrateur, Natal v Trust Bank van Afrika Bpk 1979 (3) SA 824 (A) (hereafter 'Administrateur, Natal'), a claim for pure economic loss arising from a negligent misrepresentation was recognised, although the court (Appellate Division) left open the question of whether a misrepresentation in contrahendo would found such a claim. It would be more than a decade before the Appellate Division allowed a claim in contrahendo in Bayer South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Frost 1991 (4) SA 559 (A). In both these cases it was held that the limitless liability that was feared could be held at bay by correct application of the elements of a delict, in particular the elements of wrongfulness, negligence and legal causation (Administrateur, Natal (supra) at 832H-833B; Bayer South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Frost (supra) at 568D-F: for a recent analysis of the history and development of such a claim see Anton Fagan 'Aquilian liability for negligently caused pure economic loss - Its history and doctrinal accommodation' (2014) 131 SALJ 288).
Article metrics loading...