Abstract
In Wellesley v Withers, the Court of Appeal held that where a defendant is concurrently liable in tort and contract, the contractual rules for the remoteness of loss must apply. Two principal reasons emerge from the judgments. The first, that each party has had the chance to alert the other to unusual risks, is valid but often unconvincing. The second is more original and compelling: that the nature of any responsibility assumed in tort is distinct from, but wholly defined by, the valid contract. This note seeks to develop that argument. It then addresses the uncertain issue of concurrent liability in equity. It suggests that in a case in which any fiduciary duties arise out of, and are defined by, a valid contract, it may now be appropriate to apply the contractual remoteness rules to a concurrent claim for breach of contract and equitable compensation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
