Harris and another v Wyre Forest DC and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8805) 6 February 1988, 57-68(7)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 17 December 1987. Appeal by local authority (W) and a staff valuer (L), against a decision in favour of housebuyers (H), awarded £12,000 damages for negligence on the part of W and L. When H found their first house to buy they approached W for a loan. L valued the house at the asking price and recommended a 90% loan, despite noticing settlement , which he decided was a thing of the past. Three years later, when H decided to move, inspections and two surveys revealed that the house required underpinning and other repairs and was in fact unsaleable. When H brought proceedings against W and L, the judge held that 1) W was in breach of its statutory duty which required them, before advancing money, to be satisfied that the house was fit for human habitation; 2) the valuation by L was made without due care and 3) W was not entitled to rely on the disclaimer because it was invalidated by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s2 . On appeal to CA, a considerable amount of case law was revie| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38830 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 12611-1001 |
CA 17 December 1987. Appeal by local authority (W) and a staff valuer (L), against a decision in favour of housebuyers (H), awarded £12,000 damages for negligence on the part of W and L. When H found their first house to buy they approached W for a loan. L valued the house at the asking price and recommended a 90% loan, despite noticing settlement , which he decided was a thing of the past. Three years later, when H decided to move, inspections and two surveys revealed that the house required underpinning and other repairs and was in fact unsaleable. When H brought proceedings against W and L, the judge held that 1) W was in breach of its statutory duty which required them, before advancing money, to be satisfied that the house was fit for human habitation; 2) the valuation by L was made without due care and 3) W was not entitled to rely on the disclaimer because it was invalidated by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s2 . On appeal to CA, a considerable amount of case law was revie