QUESTION 3 On 21 May 2018 Scott entered into a contract for the purchase of a property ("land) on the corner of Morrison and Cormann Streets, North Shore. Settlement under the contract took place on 9 July 2018. The land was bought for the purpose of redevelopment. Scott would not have concluded the purchase if he had known that the land would be substantially affected by road widening proposals which had been approved in principle by Auckland Transport (AT), a Council controlled organisation of Auckland Council in 2017. On 10 May 2018 his solicitor, Josh, made a telephone call to AT and spoke to Marise in the Property Department who confirmed that there were no local road widening proposals affecting the land. Josh identified himself as a solicitor acting on behalf of his client who was a prospective purchaser of the land. According to the Head of the Property Department at AT, Christopher, it was common practice to give information, including information as to the existence of any road widening proposals, orally over the telephone Although the relevant proposals were not formally adopted until February 2019, there was little doubt, in May 2018, that they would be implemented and would seriously affect the subject land. The proposals were embodied in a plan in AT's records. Josh, as solicitor for Scott, claims that he relied on AT to exercise reasonable care in advising him whether the land was subject to local road widening proposals. He said that it was reasonable for him to do so, because AT was able to know better than anyone else whether any such proposals existed, and it commonly followed the practice of giving information as to that matter when requested. Whilst Josh did not expressly say what the purchaser intended to do with the land, Scott claims that AT ought to have known that the road widening, if carried out, would adversely affect the use of the land. REQUIRED: Based on the above facts, discuss whether At may be liable in damages for the tort of negligent misstatement. 10 marks QUESTION 3 On 21 May 2018 Scott entered into a contract for the purchase of a property ("land) on the corner of Morrison and Cormann Streets, North Shore. Settlement under the contract took place on 9 July 2018. The land was bought for the purpose of redevelopment. Scott would not have concluded the purchase if he had known that the land would be substantially affected by road widening proposals which had been approved in principle by Auckland Transport (AT), a Council controlled organisation of Auckland Council in 2017. On 10 May 2018 his solicitor, Josh, made a telephone call to AT and spoke to Marise in the Property Department who confirmed that there were no local road widening proposals affecting the land. Josh identified himself as a solicitor acting on behalf of his client who was a prospective purchaser of the land. According to the Head of the Property Department at AT, Christopher, it was common practice to give information, including information as to the existence of any road widening proposals, orally over the telephone Although the relevant proposals were not formally adopted until February 2019, there was little doubt, in May 2018, that they would be implemented and would seriously affect the subject land. The proposals were embodied in a plan in AT's records. Josh, as solicitor for Scott, claims that he relied on AT to exercise reasonable care in advising him whether the land was subject to local road widening proposals. He said that it was reasonable for him to do so, because AT was able to know better than anyone else whether any such proposals existed, and it commonly followed the practice of giving information as to that matter when requested. Whilst Josh did not expressly say what the purchaser intended to do with the land, Scott claims that AT ought to have known that the road widening, if carried out, would adversely affect the use of the land. REQUIRED: Based on the above facts, discuss whether At may be liable in damages for the tort of negligent misstatement. 10 marks
