Vulnerability, tort and economic loss: Protection via contract.

Vulnerability has emerged in Australia as a relevant consideration in determining the existence of a duty of care to avoid pure economic loss. However, opinions vary on what factors establish vulnerability. One question which has confounded the courts and legal commentators alike is whether a plaintiff's capacity to protect himself or herself via contract, but failure to do so, should disentitle the plaintiff from being able to obtain relief for pure economic loss in tort on the basis that he or she was not vulnerable. This article considers the current state of authority on this question in Australia. It argues that a plaintiff's capacity to contract for a warranty of protection should be irrelevant in assessing whether or not a plaintiff is vulnerable and that more broadly, the absence of vulnerability is not a valid reason for negating duty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]