Is the tort in question a misrepresentation?
[[Yes->Was it made by a party to the contract?]]
[[No->Is it an intentional tort?]]Was it made by a party to the contract?
[[Yes->s2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967]]
[[No->Was the representation made intentionally or recklessly?]]Is it an intentional tort?
[[Yes->(Dayle v Olby)]]
[[No->The Wagon Mound (No1)]]s2(1) Misrepresentation Act 1967
Has Defendant proved she had reasonable grounds for believing the truth of the statement?
[[Yes->s2 (2) Misrepresentation Act 1967]]
[[No->(Dayle v Olby)]]Was the representation made intentionally or recklessly?
[[No->(Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners)]]
[[Yes->(Dayle v Olby)]]s2 (2) Misrepresentation Act 1967
Rescission or damages in lieu(Dayle v Olby)''//The Wagon Mound (No1)//''
Is Claimant's damage of a reasonably foreseeable type? Contrast the approach in ''//The Wagon Mound (No1)//'' with (//''Corr v IBC''//) Vehicles
[[Yes->Did it occur in a reasonably foreseeable way?]]
[[No->No recovery]]Did it occur in a reasonably foreseeable way?
(''//Hughes v Lord//'') advocate
[[Yes->Was the extent of the Claimant's damage reasonably foreseeable?]]
[[No->Was the extent of the Claimant's damage reasonably foreseeable?]]No recovery(//Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners//)Was the extent of the Claimant's damage reasonably foreseeable?
(''//Smith v Leech Brain & Co//'')
[[Yes->Does the Claimant's damage fall within the scope of the Defendant's duty?]]
[[No->Does the Claimant's damage fall within the scope of the Defendant's duty?]]Does the Claimant's damage fall within the scope of the Defendant's duty?
(''//SAAMCO, BPE v Hughes-Hollance//'')
[[Yes->Is there a novus actus interveniens?]]
[[No->No recovery]]Is there a //novus actus interveniens//?
(''//Knightley v Johns, Mckew v Holland, Weland v Cyril Lord//'')
[[Yes->Intervening act breaks chain of causation between Defendant's breach and Claimant's damage]]
[[No->Defendant's breach remains causally relevant]]Intervening act breaks chain of causation between Defendant's breach and Claimant's damageDefendant's breach remains causally relevant