is contemplated by the defendant at the time of the representation. An example is Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, where the misrepresentation took the form of negligently prepared accounts. Because the misstatement was made as part of a routine audit, the auditor did not contemplate that it would be relied upon in any particular “transaction” (at [10]), and it was not his “known purpose” that it should be (at [11]). Consequently, no duty was owed. Finally, Playboy Club may be significant in signaling a reversal of the judicial trend of viewing tortious liability for pure economic loss incurred pursuant to “assumptions of responsibility” through a contractual lens. Despite the convergence of certain remedial principles such as contributory negligence (Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v Butcher [1988] 3 W.L.R. 565) and remoteness (Wellesley Partners LLP v Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146, [2016] 2 W.L.R. 1351) across concurrent duties, Playboy Club suggests that reasoning by analogy between contract and tort has its limits. This is to be welcomed. The reasoning in Withers reflected the fact that (unlike in most torts) parties in concurrent liability cases have the opportunity to contemplate what kinds of losses might be caused in advance and allocate risk accordingly, and the decision in Vesta turned on the wording of the relevant statue; neither was based on the conceptual affinity of “assumptions of responsibility” to contract per se, and they should not be used as building blocks to import contractual doctrines into negligence. However, given the anomalous nature of the undisclosed principal doctrine, the extent to which Playboy Club represents a general change in approach to claims of this kind remains to be seen.

中文翻译：

---

清除地面–造成的麻烦，损坏和日文知识

被告在提出陈述时已经考虑了这一点。Caparo Industries plc诉Dickman一案就是一个例子，在该案中，虚假陈述以疏忽准备的账目的形式出现。由于该错误陈述是例行审计的一部分，因此审计师并未考虑将其用于任何特定的“交易”（在[10]中），并且应该不是他的“已知目的”（在[11]）。因此，没有义务。最后，《花花公子俱乐部》可能在通过合同的角度，扭转了司法趋势上的重大变化，这种趋势扭转了对纯粹的经济损失的侵权责任的追究，这种纯粹的经济损失是根据“责任承担”而发生的。尽管某些补救性原则（例如共同性过失）已经趋同（Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v Butcher [1988] 3 WLR 565）以及在同时履行职责方面的偏远性（Wellesley Partners LLP诉Withers LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 1146，[2016] 2 WLR 1351），Playboy Club建议以合同与侵权之间的类比推理为限。这是值得欢迎的。Withers中的推理反映出这样一个事实，即与大多数侵权行为不同，并发责任案件中的当事方有机会预先考虑可能造成的各类损失并相应地分配风险，Vesta的决定采用了相关法律的措词。雕像; 两者都不基于“责任假设”对合同本身的概念亲和力，也不应该将它们用作将合同学说引入疏忽的基础。但是，鉴于未公开的主要学说的异常性质，