Martin v Bell-Ingram
Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; (1986) SLT 575(11)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: Second Division 14 March 1986. Appeal by chartered surveyors (B) against decision awarding damages to the housebuyers (M) who alleged negligence on the part of B when they carried out a valuation report on M`s property. The report referred to two minor defects but failed to mention a serious sag in the roof . M did not discover this until they tried to resell. Various remedial works were carried out and the property was put back on the market. Surveyors inspecting the property in this time all observed the defect and commented on it in their reports. Prospective purchasers were materially influenced either not to pursue their interest in the house, or to offer significantly less. B did not dispute a breach of their duty of care to M, but contended that this was negatived by the disclaimer in the written offer of an advance of funds from the building society dealing with M`s loan application. B also contended that the damages awarded were excessive. Held that B could not rely on the d| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS37125 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 2439-1001 |
Second Division 14 March 1986. Appeal by chartered surveyors (B) against decision awarding damages to the housebuyers (M) who alleged negligence on the part of B when they carried out a valuation report on M`s property. The report referred to two minor defects but failed to mention a serious sag in the roof . M did not discover this until they tried to resell. Various remedial works were carried out and the property was put back on the market. Surveyors inspecting the property in this time all observed the defect and commented on it in their reports. Prospective purchasers were materially influenced either not to pursue their interest in the house, or to offer significantly less. B did not dispute a breach of their duty of care to M, but contended that this was negatived by the disclaimer in the written offer of an advance of funds from the building society dealing with M`s loan application. B also contended that the damages awarded were excessive. Held that B could not rely on the d