Negligent misstatement is based on a special relationship being Essay

Negligent misstatement is based on a special relationship being proven. By discussing relevant case law, explain how this - Essay Example Special Relationship in negligent misstatement Special relationship in law is regarded as a situation in which a party relies on a professional’s skills and experience of a professional to undertake certain actions or omissions. It is worth noting that professionals are people with impeccable knowledge and skills on myriad of issues depending on their area of expertise. Charlesworth (2008) says that due to their unique skills and experience, majority of people usually depends on their input before they act. Whenever one seeks the services of another in a professional capacity, the professional has a duty of care and as such should offer his advice or act with caution. In court proceedings where the subject matter is negligent misstatement, the court considers several factors in order to determine if there is any form of material misstatement. In fact, the courts consider three critical elements whenever they are dealing with the issue of special relationship in the context of negligent misrepresentation. One such factor is that the plaintiff relied on the skills and judgment of the defendant to make certain acts or omission. The other element is that the defendant ought to be aware or was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was relying on him to make certain acts or omission. ... The court of appeal established that the case qualified for negligent misrepresentation by the defendant and that there existed special relationship between Dick Bentley Productions and Harold Smith. The case, therefore, satisfied all the requirements of material misrepresentation, which include the fact that the plaintiff, Harold Smith Ltd, relied on the skills and judgment of the defendant, Dick Bentley Productions, to make certain the decision of purchasing the Bentley. The other element is that the defendant, Dick Bentley Productions, was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff, Harold Smith Ltd, was relying on him to make certain acts or omission. Finally, the circumstances reasonably alluded to the fact that the defendant was aware that the defendant was relying upon his advice. The defendant was a dealer in Bentley and as such; he was in a better position to tell the correct mileage of Bentley because he was a dealer in Bentley. For the special relationship to hold in court proce edings involving negligent misstatement there is need to prove that, the defendant was a professional who had the knowledge, experience, and judgment on the subject matter. In Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams (1957) 1 WLR, the defendant had falsely stated the age of the car to the dealer in a part exchange transaction. The court held that although there was a statement, the defendant was not in a position to tell the true age of the car to the plaintiff since the former was not a professional in the field. The statement of the defendant was therefore held to be representational. In his judgment, the judge alluded to the fact that the plaintiff could have at least bothered to verify the details that were