Abstract

The concept of negligent misstatement, which acknowledges accountability for monetary losses brought on by reliance on false or inaccurate assertions, is essential in bridging the gap between contract and tort law. The principle's growth via later decisions like Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman is examined in this paper, following its historic recognition in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd. It examines the components required to prove such liability, including foreseeability, duty of care, reliance, and the existence or lack of disclaimers. The scope and limitations of this tort are further examined in the paper through a doctrinal analysis, particularly in view of the contemporary difficulties presented by professional advice platforms and digital communication. The study emphasizes the necessity for a more explicit acknowledgement of this principle in Indian tort law, despite its primary foundation in English jurisprudence. The paper advocates for a balanced strategy that safeguards real dependence without placing an undue burden on specialists by critically analyzing academic literature and case law. In order to guarantee improved legal clarity and fairness when handling claims of negligent misstatements, the study ends by proposing reforms and comparative observations.

Keywords