The courts have in the past been reluctant to allow a claimant to take advantage of the law of tort in contractual situations where it would provide a wider remedy than that already included in the contract. The reasoning behind this was that the parties had the opportunity of defining their obligations and the courts were not prepared to allow the claimant to go further by relying on tort as well. Similarly, this approach was taken in respect of damage to property by way of negligence.The Court of Appeal in this case ruled that because of clauses in the contract, which stated that the claimant was to bear the risk of fire, the claimant could not use negligence to protect his interests. This case therefore demonstrated the importance of deciding between tort and contract. If a claimant sought to protect himself by way of contract, he must have ensured that the terms were carefully considered to provide adequate protection for his interests as he would not be able to subsequently rely on the law to protect him. However, the law has since moved on from this view and has become increasingly more in favour of allowing parties to rely on aspects of contract and tort in areas where there is a conflict. For example in the leading case of Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd, the House of Lords held that where a person performing professional or quasi-professional services to a client there was considered to be an ‘assumption of responsibility’ which if combined with a reliance from the person to whom those services had been performed, would give arise to a concurrent duty in tort and contract. Lord Goff stated in this case ‘I do not find it objectionable that the claimant may be entitled to take advantage of the remedy which is most advantageous to him,’therefore demonstrating a shift from the earlier reliance in preventing parties from relying on the concurrent duties of contract and tort. This case was later applied in Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building Ltd where it was held that a concurrent duty existed in tort even where there had been an agreement between the parties to avoid causing economic loss by exercising reasonable care and skill when carrying out the terms of the contract.