2. The merits of an action for breach of contract and tortious negligence against Professor Stephen Squeers for defective design of the property
However, Miss Dross Flop’s another possible claim can be in tort of negligence. Miss Dross flop will have to prove that Professor Steers owed her a duty of care as he took the responsibility to build according to her plan. And she will have to prove that he breached his duty by failing to perform his duties according to a reasonable standard due to which she suffered losses.
As Professor was a professional architect, courts would compare him with a reasonable person with the same skill or qualification and determine if Professor was acting according to the standard of care that was expected of the reasonable professional.
In Farley V Skinner it was held that if the non-professionals can expect to pay damages for negligence, then the professionals and surveyors should also be in the similar position.
In Anns V Merton, Lord Wilberforce came up with a two staged test. The first question of which was to see if there was a sufficient relationship of Proximity between the Claimant and Defendant, such that the carelessness of the D might cause damage to the C. And second question was to find out if there were any considerations which ought to limit the scope of duty of care to whom it was owed. Following this test, the first question would be satisfied as the sufficient proximity of relationship can clearly be seen and secondly the duty of care could not be limited in this case.
According to the current test, Miss Dross Flop will have to prove three factors. Firstly, that it was reasonably foreseeable that person in her position would suffer. Secondly that there was a sufficient proximity between both of them and thirdly that it is just fair and reasonable to impose liability on professor Steers. The classic illustration of this test can be seen in the case of Caparo V Dickman.
Other than these two tests in the...