Commercial Financial Services v McBeth and Co
Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; 1988 SLT 528-532(5)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: Outer House 15 January 1988 An action of damages by Commercial Financial Services Ltd (C) against McBeth and Co (M), a firm of chartered surveyors . C sued in negligence and in contract for damages for an alleged negligent valuation provided by M to a company to whom C had lent money secured over the subjects valued. M averred that their contract had been with the company and not with C, that the valuation had been given to the company and that it contained a statement that it was for the use only of the parties to whom it was addressed and there was no liability to third parties. Held that the statement quoted by M constituted a clear disclaimer and therefore C`s case based on negligence was irrelevant and that C`s averments led to the conclusion that the report they had received could not be considered as performance of contract and so there was no relevant case based on breach of contract. Action was accordingly dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39545 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 17399-1001 |
Outer House 15 January 1988 An action of damages by Commercial Financial Services Ltd (C) against McBeth and Co (M), a firm of chartered surveyors . C sued in negligence and in contract for damages for an alleged negligent valuation provided by M to a company to whom C had lent money secured over the subjects valued. M averred that their contract had been with the company and not with C, that the valuation had been given to the company and that it contained a statement that it was for the use only of the parties to whom it was addressed and there was no liability to third parties. Held that the statement quoted by M constituted a clear disclaimer and therefore C`s case based on negligence was irrelevant and that C`s averments led to the conclusion that the report they had received could not be considered as performance of contract and so there was no relevant case based on breach of contract. Action was accordingly dismissed.