Image from Google Jackets

G P and P Ltd v Bulcraig and Davies and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8812) 26 March 1988, 103-111(5)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 27 October 1987 Appeal by solicitors Bulcraig & Davies (B) against a QBD decision, so far as the decision concerned the computation of damages and the order that they should pay the costs of the second defendants, a firm of surveyors , in an action by advertising agents for negligence . GP & P Ltd (G) had instructed the surveyors to find suitable offices to rent and retained B to act in connection with the acquisition. G`s receiver discovered that the ground floor of the acquired premises was subject to a planning condition restricting part to printing trade use only. The receiver found it impossible to dispose of the lease and it was eventually surrendered to the landlords for a payment. A crucial finding was that if G had known of the restriction, they would never have taken the lease. B did not appeal against the finding of negligence , but against the computation of damages and the order that they pay the costs of the surveyors. It was accepted that in calculating the damages
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38962 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 13518-1001

CA 27 October 1987 Appeal by solicitors Bulcraig & Davies (B) against a QBD decision, so far as the decision concerned the computation of damages and the order that they should pay the costs of the second defendants, a firm of surveyors , in an action by advertising agents for negligence . GP & P Ltd (G) had instructed the surveyors to find suitable offices to rent and retained B to act in connection with the acquisition. G`s receiver discovered that the ground floor of the acquired premises was subject to a planning condition restricting part to printing trade use only. The receiver found it impossible to dispose of the lease and it was eventually surrendered to the landlords for a payment. A crucial finding was that if G had known of the restriction, they would never have taken the lease. B did not appeal against the finding of negligence , but against the computation of damages and the order that they pay the costs of the surveyors. It was accepted that in calculating the damages