Law of Negligence Public Power

Question: Discuss about the Law of Negligence Public Power. Answer: Introduction: This case consider the issue of economic loss and whether or not a solicitor was liable to a beneficiary for their failure to locate the executor of the deceased estate which led to delay in the administration of the estate. In this case, a firm of solicitors were in possession of a will and were accountable for finding the executor of the will so they could be administered (Barker 2016). The wife of the now deceased executor and beneficiary of the will bought an action against the solicitors because they had taken six years to find the executor. She argued that they owed her duty of care to ensure that the will is administered. Duty of Care, Law of negligence and Law of Tort Factual background (Plaintiff v. Defendant): The defendant solicitors prepared and retained the will of executor for safekeeping. The will led to the appointment of the plaintiff, Mr Hawkins, as the solitary executor and the original beneficiary of the testators estate. No steps were undertaken to contact the plaintiff to notify her of the death of testator or she was the solitary executor of the estate until 1981. In the year 1982, the plaintiff bought an action against the defendant solicitors for their negligence and contract in quest to recover the losses suffered because of delay in undertaking the possession of the estate as executor (Chan 2016). The Supreme Court ruled that the law of tort was based on duty, which was owed to plaintiff originally. The contractual claim was principally based on the contract, which was formed amid the plaintiff and the defendant solicitors. Importance of decision based on law of negligence: Under this case, the high court allowed the plaintiff for the first time ever to recover the complete economic loss due to negligent omission (Ayres 2012). It is worth mentioning that any high court decision in the developing areas of liability for economic loss and negligent omission is vital and the high court willingness to allow for recovery under the Hawkins v. Clayton is an important determinant. The high court clearly ruled that the act of negligent and omission are the root cause for plaintiff economic loss which solely attracts liability (Thompson 2012). The verdict passed by the high court allowed the plaintiff with the opportunity to express her views on this growing area of negligence. It is also learned that the plaintiff endorsing the proximity test as the fitting determinant regarding the presence of duty of care. Concurrent duties in Tort and Contract: It is worth mentioning that in the Hawkins case, the decision passed by the court made a significance contribution with respect to rationalisation and growth of law of negligence. The case further contributes by providing guidelines in determining whether the acts of professional negligence should be brought under tort or contract. In a straightforward judgement, the court ruled that excluding the cases containing certain period of limitations, the liability of a solicitor regarding professional negligence would be considered tortuous act and not contractual (Ayres 2012). The court raised the questions regarding the need to enforce a reasonable term in contract when there was a duty of care imposed by the common law. The court viewed that any such conflict amid the different division of law having contract and tort must be resolved as soon as possible. The court however pointed out that that the solicitor was under the obligations of concurrent contractual duty of care with respect t o his client where the parties to the contract imposed duty of care on the solicitors under original intentions. Significance of decision concerning limitation period in tort: Significance of the decision passed by court was important, as the implications on solicitors cannot be ignored. The defendant solicitors were under the obligation of duty to locate the executor positively and provide her of the content of the clients will even though it had not been retained and it was not a part of contract. The court ruled that the solicitor were handed the duty to take due care of will and this was enough to attract liability (Dobbs 2012). The imposition of this duty solely depends upon the custody of will rather than of the solicitors knowledge of the clients death. The steps undertaken by the solicitor who failed to take any positive action was relevant enough to determine that a breach of duty occurred. The solicitors had the knowledge of clients death and their failure to notify the executor constituted the breach of duty. Reference List: Ayres, I., 2012.Studies in Contract Law. Foundation Press. Barker, K., 2016. Discretionary Power and the Law of Negligence-Public Power, Private Duty. Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M. and Trindade, F., 2012.The law of torts in Australia. Oxford University Press. Chan, G.K., 2016. Finding Common Law Duty of Care from Statutory Duties: All within the Anns Framework.The Tort Law Review. Dobbs, D.B., 2012.The law of torts(Vol. 2). West Group. Thompson, S.D., 2012.Commentaries on the Law of Negligence in All Relations. Rarebooksclub Com.