UP v Tommie Meyer Films (1977): Pure Economic Loss & Negligent Misstatement
UP v Tommie Meyer Films on liability for pure economic loss caused by negligent misstatement - when financial harm is actionable.
Universiteit van Pretoria v Tommie Meyer Films: When Are You Liable for Financial Loss?
Citation: UP v Tommie Meyer Films 1977 (4) SA 376 (T)
The Principle
You can be liable for pure economic loss (financial loss without physical harm) caused by negligent misstatement if:
- Special relationship exists
- Knew or should have foreseen reliance
- Proximity between parties
The Facts
- UP gave wrong info about student's academic record
- Tommie Meyer Films relied on it for employment decision
- Suffered financial loss
- UP held liable
Exam Application
For pure economic loss claims:
Step 1: "Under UP v Tommie Meyer, liability for pure economic loss requires a special relationship, foreseeability of reliance, and proximity."
Step 2: Was there a special relationship? (Professional advice, duty to provide accurate info)
Step 3: Was reliance foreseeable? (Did defendant know statement would be relied on?)
Step 4: Was there proximity? (Direct relationship vs remote third party)
Related
- Durr v ABSA Bank (1997) — Economic loss in banking
- Rennie NO v Nedcor Bank (2004) — Negligent misstatement by banks
Tags: #delict #economicloss #negligentmisstatement #professionalliability
Enjoyed this piece?
Subscribe to get more case analyses and study tips like this — delivered occasionally, never spam.