ABSTRACT
With the expansion of the tort of negligence into the area of misstatement these three party situations can become legally quite complex in that the rules and remedies of contract, tort and equity (estoppel) often exist side-by-side. In some factual situations the rule of non-concurrence used to operate, particularly in the area of professional liability; however, in contrast to French law, there is now no formal rule that tort actions will be excluded when there is a contractual relationship.168 Certainly, in the field of commercial law contractual duties are capable of excluding tort duties, even in three party situations;169 but in the area of misrepresentation the idea of nonconcurrence can often be rather unrealistic since the established rights and remedies straddle the boundaries of contract, tort and equity. A misleading statement can, at one and the same time, lead to a number of causes of action and a number of different remedies. Moreover, the idea that a breach of contract can, as against a third party, amount to a tort170 and that a tort can affect the doctrine of estoppel171 is established in the case law. All the same the courts still claim to be keen to uphold the boundaries between the various causes of action172 and this can effect the scope and application of remedies particularly in the area of misrepresentation.173
