Henry (C) has rights against Gordon (D) as far as C relied upon D as a professional, and D knew that C would rely on his expertise, as set out in Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964); whereby C was an advertising agency who had asked another firm; Easipower Ltd to buy advertising space on their behalf. The bank of Easipower; Heller said twice that they were respectable, but this was said with a disclaimer. The advertising agency then proceeded with a contract with Easipower. Easipower subsequently collapsed, and went into liquidation, which as a result left Hedley Byrne to pay for the advertising space.
Is prosperous sustenance of contemporary art the fiscal responsibility of the government? Noel Carroll's article "Can government funding of the arts be justified theoretically?" analyzes this question. The justifications as presented by Carroll can be seen as an approach towards appeasing the irate tax payers who are demanding to know the reasons behind the spending of public money on prospective art. In light of recent controversies in North America over the merit of artistic work, it's funding and purchase by government institutions, the public has the right to demand the reasons for such allocations of their hard earned dollars. Carroll presents a wide range of theoretical justifications for such spending of public money. These justifications range from issues concerning public welfare to moralistic role of art in society.