The Common Law will not be abrogated by statute but may be adopted by statute. The Common Law will always remain our tradition and the basis of principles that inform the appropriate development of statutory laws and codes. New arrivals to the discussion may not like the word "owe" in the formulation of the discussion involving duties of care but it is understood that Tort law is about obligations and one party owes the other a duty of care in certain scenarios where we can say reasonably that such a duty exists and is rightfully owed, lets say, to a customer, to a passenger, to a business client and to a building occupant. We can say to the person who has failed his duty of care with poisoned products or negligent building works that he can face a claim where it will show that he will owe a duty of care, that he breached that duty of care and the claimant suffered harm or loss as a result of that breach. There is debate as to whether pure economic loss can be considered harm but it could be a significant loss and therefore sufficient harm in any context. We might have to reassess the discussion and ensure there is no doubt that economic loss is sufficient harm to satisfy a claim in tory and not only a claim under contract law or in Delict. The claimant can make his choice. The damages might be the same if awarded but it seems Tort is usually the body of law that we utilise to address duties, harm and loss when there is no evident written agreement between the parties.
the common law will not be abrogated by statute but may be adopted by statute the common law will always remain our tradition and the basis of principles that inform the appropriate development of statutory laws and codes new arrivals to the discussion may not like the word "owe" in the formulation of the discussion involving duties of care but it is understood that tort law is about obligations and one party owes the other a duty of care in certain scenarios where we can say reasonably that such a duty exists and is rightfully owed lets say to a customer to a passenger to a business client and to a building occupant we can say to the person who has failed his duty of care with poisoned products or negligent building works that he can face a claim where it will show that he will owe a duty of care that he breached that duty of care and the claimant suffered harm or loss as a result of that breach there is debate as to whether pure economic loss can be considered harm but it could be a significant loss and therefore sufficient harm in any context we might have to reassess the discussion and ensure there is no doubt that economic loss is sufficient harm to satisfy a claim in tory and not only a claim under contract law or in delict the claimant can make his choice the damages might be the same if awarded but it seems tort is usually the body of law that we utilise to address duties harm and loss when there is no evident written agreement between the parties