CEMP Properties Ltd v Dentsply Research and Development Corp
CEMP Properties Ltd v Dentsply Research and Development Corp
- 1989
- Estates Gazette (1989) 37 EG 133-136(3) .
ChD 21 March 1989. The third stage in proceedings brought by purchaser (C), against vendor (D). The first two stages established D`s liability under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and quantification of damages awarded to C for misrepresentation . The third stage, relates to a third party claim against D`s solicitors (S). The point at issue is whether S was liable to indemnify D against costs, and damages awarded to C. S contended that such an indemnity amounted to unjust enrichment for D. D`s claim was based on: 1) the liability of an agent to indemnify his principle in respect of damages suffered, through the agent`s failure to exercise due care or skill and 2) the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 s1(1). ChD rejected the suggestion that to indemnify D against the award of damages would be unjust enrichment, as the award was not based on calculations of market value, but on extra costs incurred by C. ChD found S to be liable on the first of the two points; S
DENTON HALL AND BURGIN
LIABILITY
RIGHT TO AIR
RIGHT TO LIGHT
VENDOR AND PURCHASER
ChD 21 March 1989. The third stage in proceedings brought by purchaser (C), against vendor (D). The first two stages established D`s liability under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and quantification of damages awarded to C for misrepresentation . The third stage, relates to a third party claim against D`s solicitors (S). The point at issue is whether S was liable to indemnify D against costs, and damages awarded to C. S contended that such an indemnity amounted to unjust enrichment for D. D`s claim was based on: 1) the liability of an agent to indemnify his principle in respect of damages suffered, through the agent`s failure to exercise due care or skill and 2) the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 s1(1). ChD rejected the suggestion that to indemnify D against the award of damages would be unjust enrichment, as the award was not based on calculations of market value, but on extra costs incurred by C. ChD found S to be liable on the first of the two points; S
DENTON HALL AND BURGIN
LIABILITY
RIGHT TO AIR
RIGHT TO LIGHT
VENDOR AND PURCHASER