Miro Properties Ltd v J Trevor & Sons
Miro Properties Ltd v J Trevor & Sons
- 1989
- Estates Gazette (1989) 08 EG 125-131(4) .
QBD 6 July 1988. Action by company (M) against surveyors (T) claiming damages for alleged negligence in relation to a structural survey of a flat purchased by M. T admitted that the survey had not been carried out in accordance with the standard required by the law. Three points remained at issue:- 1) whether any cause of action vested in M, which was not incorporated when it received assurance by telephone and telex that the flat was in good condition with no structural defects ; subsequently defects were discovered in the brickwork; 2) whether M relied upon either of these initial reports and 3) if the previous two defences failed, what was the proper sum to be awarded as damages. T claimed M had no cause of action since the company did not exist when the reports had been made. The judge rejected this argument; he held that the reports had been made to M`s solicitor so that he could pass them to M, both as individuals and as agents for the company when it came into existence. The s
RICS HOMEBUYER SURVEY AND VALUATION
LIABILITY
NEGLIGENCE
PERRY V SIDNEY PHILLIPS AND SON
PHILIPS V WARD
SURVEY REPORT
SURVEYORS
QBD 6 July 1988. Action by company (M) against surveyors (T) claiming damages for alleged negligence in relation to a structural survey of a flat purchased by M. T admitted that the survey had not been carried out in accordance with the standard required by the law. Three points remained at issue:- 1) whether any cause of action vested in M, which was not incorporated when it received assurance by telephone and telex that the flat was in good condition with no structural defects ; subsequently defects were discovered in the brickwork; 2) whether M relied upon either of these initial reports and 3) if the previous two defences failed, what was the proper sum to be awarded as damages. T claimed M had no cause of action since the company did not exist when the reports had been made. The judge rejected this argument; he held that the reports had been made to M`s solicitor so that he could pass them to M, both as individuals and as agents for the company when it came into existence. The s
RICS HOMEBUYER SURVEY AND VALUATION
LIABILITY
NEGLIGENCE
PERRY V SIDNEY PHILLIPS AND SON
PHILIPS V WARD
SURVEY REPORT
SURVEYORS