Indemnity insurance

If you do not charge, you do not need insurance, because you can disclaim liability. But you should do so before the fact, i.e. make clear to your clients that your advice is "worth what they're paying for it". :-)

I doubt whether this would mitigate all of the claim. The op should post on uk.legal.

Daytona

"Daytona" wrote

On what exactly do you think the "client" could claim? As there is no contract with the client for the provision of services (there won't be, without any consideration in return for the services), I'm not sure how the "client" could claim for anything ...

That the op was a registered advisor and claimed they were an expert. The clients had reasonable expectations that the advice given was correct, but in reality the advice was incorrect and the clients lost out financially ?

I suppose you could say the same about newsgroups and websites. On websites it's normal to have disclaimers. Why ?

Daytona

"Daytona" wrote

They are, of course, not true *clients* - as they are not paying for the service. Should anyone really have a "reasonable expectation" that *free* advice should be correct?

Since when did 'reasonable' and lawyers ever mix?

I don't know, which is why I expressed my doubts, whilst highlighting the issue for the op. It would be worth the op investigating properly as making an assumption on something like this is not sensible. Address your questions to uk.legal.

Daytona

As

of services

the

anything

were an expert.

given was

paying for

You are confusing the contexts of contract and tort.

Without consideration, there is no contract.

But it can be reasonable for a duty of care to be found even where advice is "free". Henderson v Merrett is a good place to start looking.

Briefly, if an advisor gives advice upon which he knows reliance is going to be placed, then he may be liable, whether or not it is paid for.

(uk.legal; ie.general added)

As

of services

for the

for anything

were an

the advice

not paying for

that *free*

Tumbleweed wrote:

Interesting - this was precisely why I expressed my doubts about it being a clear cut issue.

Why ie.general ? Does Henderson v Merrett apply their as well ?

Daytona

Scríobh Daytona :

Irish courts frequently take guidance from precedents in other common law jurisdictions when deciding cases

Wow - that's an open minded approach ! I fear that the reverse would never happen in the UK.....

Daytona

even where

start

reliance

not it is

about it

well ?

Yep - it has been cited approvingly in at least one High court decision

well ?

other common

reverse would

It does. One example would be a case on a fixed charge on book debts whose name escapes me just now.

"Rhoy the Bhoy" wrote in message news:AP%uc.1081$ snipped-for-privacy@news.indigo.ie...

as

in

If it helps anyone, it was a judgment of Costello J. (as he then was) and the company in question was based in Kilkenny.