NEGLIGENCE BY WORDS

Abstract

The English decision in Candler v. Crane, Christmas & Co. held that the law precludes liability for negligent misstatements. In light of previous authority, the author reviews this case, illustrating a number of conclusions: 1) that the majority were not bound to preclude liability, 2) that the question was open for fresh determination, 3) that earlier cases were correctly interpreted by the dissent and 4) that it is currently open to the courts of Canada, Australia and England to conclude that liability for negligent misstatements can be imposed at common law. The intention of this article is to expose the potential of the dissent in Candler to further that goal.