Instructions: Critically read the following journal article and answer the provided questions. Joachim Dietrich, 'Liability in Negligence for Pure Economic Law: The Last Chapter' (2000) 7 JCULR 74-95.

Questions 1. What is 'relational economic loss'? This term is used to refer to losses in such cases in which losses are incurred as the result of some relationship between the third party and the plaintiff. Where the defendant damages property of third party in which incurs economic loss for the plaintiff due to their "relationship" with the third party.

2. What are the two traditional criticisms stated by the author for allowing claims for pure economic loss?

3. What is the author's criticism of the Caltex Oil case? It can be argued that the High Court's decision has failed to take the opportunity to provide clear guidance to the courts and legal profession on the question of what has replaced the rule excluding liability for pure economic loss caused by negligent acts or omissions.

4. State the two-fold approach towards determining economic loss in the Bow Valley Husky case.

5. Briefly outline the facts of the Perre v Apand Pty Ltd decision.

6. Did Perre v Apand Pty Ltd establish a confirmed test regarding a duty of care in pure economic loss cases?

7. Perre v Apand Pty Ltd was heard by a panel of seven (7) judges. Which judge's approach did you favour? Justify your answer by explaining your position.

8. What is the Canadian position in relation to pure economic loss? Is the Canadian position clearer as opposed to the Australian position in respect of pure economic loss?