A threadbare blanket
Murdoch, J.
A threadbare blanket - 2004 - Estates Gazette (0437) 11 September 2004, 141(1) .
Examines in the first part of a two-part article (see also Abs68277), the incomplete protection against estate agent or vendor misrepresentation afforded to purchasers by the law. Considers claims against the vendor, in particular the courts' view that any misdescription by the agent takes effect as a statement authorised by the vendor whether or not it has been so authorised. Points out the serious drawback to the purchaser presented by the no authority clause defence where a standard clause in the sales particulars absolves the vendor or agent of any authority to make or give any representation or warranty whatever in relation to the property. Looks also at possible claims of negligence against the agent who must surely owe a duty of care to potential purchasers not to mislead them, although such claims can be difficult to prove as in "McCullagh v Lane Fox and Partners Ltd" (CA, Abs55237), where the agent's disclaimer of responsibility in the sales particulars defeated the purchaser's negligence claim against him.
GOSLING V ANDERSON
MISSTATEMENT
DUTY OF CARE
MCCULLAGH V LANE FOX AND PARTNERS LTD
SALE PARTICULARS
VENDORS
MISDESCRIPTION
PURCHASERS
AGENTS
UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977
MULLENS V MILLER
COLLINS V HOWELL-JONES
A threadbare blanket - 2004 - Estates Gazette (0437) 11 September 2004, 141(1) .
Examines in the first part of a two-part article (see also Abs68277), the incomplete protection against estate agent or vendor misrepresentation afforded to purchasers by the law. Considers claims against the vendor, in particular the courts' view that any misdescription by the agent takes effect as a statement authorised by the vendor whether or not it has been so authorised. Points out the serious drawback to the purchaser presented by the no authority clause defence where a standard clause in the sales particulars absolves the vendor or agent of any authority to make or give any representation or warranty whatever in relation to the property. Looks also at possible claims of negligence against the agent who must surely owe a duty of care to potential purchasers not to mislead them, although such claims can be difficult to prove as in "McCullagh v Lane Fox and Partners Ltd" (CA, Abs55237), where the agent's disclaimer of responsibility in the sales particulars defeated the purchaser's negligence claim against him.
GOSLING V ANDERSON
MISSTATEMENT
DUTY OF CARE
MCCULLAGH V LANE FOX AND PARTNERS LTD
SALE PARTICULARS
VENDORS
MISDESCRIPTION
PURCHASERS
AGENTS
UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977
MULLENS V MILLER
COLLINS V HOWELL-JONES