Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co
E590298
Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co is a landmark English Court of Appeal case in which Lord Denning articulated the modern principle of liability for negligent misstatements in tort.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6384690 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co Context triple: [Lord Denning, notableWork, Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co]
-
A.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
-
B.
Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that strengthened protections for religious liberty by requiring strict scrutiny of government actions that substantially burden individuals’ religious practices.
-
C.
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the Rules Enabling Act and helped define the scope of federal procedural rulemaking.
-
D.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
E.
Inns of Chancery
The Inns of Chancery were medieval and early modern English legal institutions that served as preparatory training colleges and residences for law students and clerks associated with the Inns of Court in London.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co Target entity description: Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co is a landmark English Court of Appeal case in which Lord Denning articulated the modern principle of liability for negligent misstatements in tort.
-
A.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
-
B.
Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that strengthened protections for religious liberty by requiring strict scrutiny of government actions that substantially burden individuals’ religious practices.
-
C.
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the Rules Enabling Act and helped define the scope of federal procedural rulemaking.
-
D.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
E.
Inns of Chancery
The Inns of Chancery were medieval and early modern English legal institutions that served as preparatory training colleges and residences for law students and clerks associated with the Inns of Court in London.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (40)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Court of Appeal of England and Wales case
ⓘ
English court case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
economic loss
ⓘ
negligence ⓘ negligent misstatement ⓘ tort law ⓘ |
| category |
English Court of Appeal case
ⓘ
English tort case ⓘ |
| citation | [1951] 2 KB 164 ⓘ |
| country | United Kingdom ⓘ |
| court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales ⓘ |
| decisionYear | 1951 ⓘ |
| factSummary | the claimant relied on negligently prepared accounts in making an investment ⓘ |
| holding | no duty of care was recognized on the facts by the majority ⓘ |
| importance | articulated the modern principle of liability for negligent misstatements in tort ⓘ |
| influenceOn | Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd ⓘ |
| judge |
Asquith LJ
ⓘ
Cohen LJ ⓘ Lord Denning ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | England and Wales ⓘ |
| keyConcept |
assumption of responsibility for statements
ⓘ
foreseeability of economic loss from reliance on statements ⓘ proximity between maker and recipient of statement ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| leadingOpinionBy | Lord Denning ⓘ |
| legalDoctrine | negligent misrepresentation in tort ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple |
duty of care in making statements causing pure economic loss
ⓘ
liability for negligent misstatements in tort ⓘ requirement of a special relationship for liability for negligent misstatement ⓘ |
| legalStatus | leading English authority on negligent misstatement prior to Hedley Byrne ⓘ |
| party |
Candler
ⓘ
Crane, Christmas & Co ⓘ
linked to:
Crane & Co.
|
| professionInvolved | accountants ⓘ |
| reporter |
King’s Bench reports
ⓘ
linked to:
King’s Bench
|
| result | claim dismissed by the Court of Appeal majority ⓘ |
| separateOpinion | Lord Denning delivered a dissenting judgment ⓘ |
| subsequentDevelopment | principles in Lord Denning’s dissent were later approved by the House of Lords in Hedley Byrne ⓘ |
| timePeriod | 20th century ⓘ |
| topic |
professional negligence
ⓘ
pure economic loss ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co Description of subject: Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co is a landmark English Court of Appeal case in which Lord Denning articulated the modern principle of liability for negligent misstatements in tort.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.