Ossining Union Free School District v. Anderson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that in negligent misrepresentation cases, the relationship between the parties must “be one of contract or the bond between them so close as to be the functional equivalent of contractual privity”
• holding that architects and engineers were liable for statements made to school
• requiring “actual privity of contract between the parties or a relationship so close as to approach that of privity” to recover purely economic losses
• allowing claim by district that had contract with architects who in reliance on report of defendant engineering consultant wrongly advised district that facility needed to be vacated
• declaring the test for misrepresentation liability to be “(1) awareness that the reports were to be used for a particular purpose or purposes; (2) reliance by a known party or parties in furtherance of that purpose; and (3
• discussing the functional equivalent of privity test in the context of a negligence claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).