Eley and another v King and Chasemore
Eley and another v King and Chasemore
- 1989
- Estates Gazette (1989) 22 EG 109-116(5) .
CA 11 April 1989. In 1984 a purchaser (E) instructed Mr H, a partner in the defendant firm of estate agents , surveyors and valuers (K) to produce a structural survey of a house. A written report was sent to E and a summary to E`s employers who were to act as mortgagees. The report included the statements that walls had four cracks to the rendering and four cracks to structural features, due to the house being built on shrinkable clay subsoil . He also drew attention to an unconventional roof covering and the presence of valley gutters. Overall the report claimed "we would not say that the property had more than its share of trouble". It was clear that Mr H had not been up on the roof. E purchased the house taking out insurance on the matters mentioned as advised. Roofing contractors engaged to complete repairs found more major problems with the roof. E wrote to K concerning the matter. An endorsed writ was issued, however the damages claimed were amended on three occasions. The judg
NEGLIGENCE
CA 11 April 1989. In 1984 a purchaser (E) instructed Mr H, a partner in the defendant firm of estate agents , surveyors and valuers (K) to produce a structural survey of a house. A written report was sent to E and a summary to E`s employers who were to act as mortgagees. The report included the statements that walls had four cracks to the rendering and four cracks to structural features, due to the house being built on shrinkable clay subsoil . He also drew attention to an unconventional roof covering and the presence of valley gutters. Overall the report claimed "we would not say that the property had more than its share of trouble". It was clear that Mr H had not been up on the roof. E purchased the house taking out insurance on the matters mentioned as advised. Roofing contractors engaged to complete repairs found more major problems with the roof. E wrote to K concerning the matter. An endorsed writ was issued, however the damages claimed were amended on three occasions. The judg
NEGLIGENCE