Suleman v Shahsavari
Suleman v Shahsavari
- 1988
- Weekly Law Reports (1988) 1 WLR 1181-1185(5) .
ChD 17 June 1988 Suleman (S) agreed to purchase a house for £46,500 and contracts were exchanged signed by the vendors` (V) solicitor . V who were husband and wife refused to complete, claiming that the solicitor had no authority to sign the contract on their behalf. S claimed specific performance or damages against V and damages against V`s solicitor for breach of warranty of authority. The value of the house just before the action was £76,000. QBD found that the solicitor did not have the authority to act for the vendor, so S`s claim against V failed, but the claim against V`s solicitor must therefore succeed. At issue, however, was the measure of damages to be awarded. ChD held that although the usual measure of damages at for loss of bargain for a house sale was the difference between the contract price and the price at completion, it was not an absolute rule and damages might be assessed by reference to the value at a different date if it would be more than just to do so. In thi
CONVEYANCING
HOUSE TRANSFER
NEGLIGENCE
ChD 17 June 1988 Suleman (S) agreed to purchase a house for £46,500 and contracts were exchanged signed by the vendors` (V) solicitor . V who were husband and wife refused to complete, claiming that the solicitor had no authority to sign the contract on their behalf. S claimed specific performance or damages against V and damages against V`s solicitor for breach of warranty of authority. The value of the house just before the action was £76,000. QBD found that the solicitor did not have the authority to act for the vendor, so S`s claim against V failed, but the claim against V`s solicitor must therefore succeed. At issue, however, was the measure of damages to be awarded. ChD held that although the usual measure of damages at for loss of bargain for a house sale was the difference between the contract price and the price at completion, it was not an absolute rule and damages might be assessed by reference to the value at a different date if it would be more than just to do so. In thi
CONVEYANCING
HOUSE TRANSFER
NEGLIGENCE