... The fact that it is unlikely for a claimant to bring an action to the court for pure economic loss was also illustrated in Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute2 and Candlewood Navigation Corporation v Mitsui OSK Lined3. Rusty was the main contractor. In D and F Estates v Church Commissioners4, Lord Bridge stated that "liability can only arise if the defect remains hidden until the defective structure causes personal injury or damage to property other than the structure itself. If the defect is discovered before any damage is caused, the loss sustained by the owner of the structure, would be seen as purely economic". In the D and F case, the main contractor did not in general assume a duty of care to any person who might be injured by a dangerous defect caused by the negligence of an apparent competent sub-contractor. When the principle of this case is ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now