Bos+Valley+Husky


 * Bow Valley Husky**

HOOL and BVI create a corporation BVHL to form a K with SJSL to construct and oil rig. SJSL Kd out some of the building duties to others. The rig was owned by BVHL (puppet corp of both parents) and HOOL and BVI essentially were the renters of the rig. During the construction, a system was installed which required a safety-monitoring piece. It was not installed, there was a fire and the rig was out of service while needing repairs. HOOL and BVI brought an action against SJSL for breach of K and negligence and sought to recover the day rates that they were Ktually liable for during the time that the rig was unusable.
 * FACTS:**

Did SJSL and Raychem owe a BVI and HOOL a duty to warn? Can there be recovery for contractual relational economic loss? (Note: this is only one criteria on which this case is evaluated. There are questions (a)-(h) which the decision treats. This is merely question (f).
 * ISSUES:**


 * HOLDING:** No

Three Points: 1) Economic interests have customarily been seen by the common law courts as less worthy of protection than either property or bodily security.
 * REASONING:**

2) REL presents the problem of spectre of “indeterminate liability”

3) May be more efficient to place the burden of economic loss on the victim as they may be better positioned to anticipate the risk.


 * RATIO:**
 * Categories where K’ual relational economic loss are recognised – (1) possessory/proprietary interest; (2) general average cases; (3) joint ventures – aren’t closed: new categories can be recognised where deterrent effect is low, or where opportunity to allocate risk is slight
 * Proximity exists if defendant is under obligation to be mindful of plaintiff’s legitimate interests in conducting his affairs
 * Where duty to warn is alleged, issue is not reliance (there’s nothing to rely on), but whether defendants ought reasonably to have seen that plaintiffs might suffer a loss as a result of using the product
 * Policy considerations in //Anns// step 2 also include positive considerations in support of imposing a duty