ORC 20 July 1989. The plaintiffs (B) purchased a property for which a scheme 1 valuation had been undertaken, and on the basis of the report, B went ahead with the purchase. The second plaintiff (P), thought it was a surveyor `s report, not a valuation , and if a major problem had been indicated, would not have bought the house. Subsequently it was found that the cellar walls had been constructed with a form of concrete found to be unstable - this condition would not necessarily have been found with a full structural survey, and the question arose as to whether specific visible defects were sufficient to warrant that the surveyor had a duty to follow up any greater problems which might exist, before undertaking a valuation. On hearing the evidence, the judge concluded that the damage asserted by the plaintiffs had not been sufficient to give rise to any duty not to value or to refer for greater inspection and the plaintiffs` claim failed.