Damages for misrepresentation
Damages for misrepresentation
- 1989
- EGCS 1989 48 .
In CEMP Properties (UK) Ltd v Dentsply Research and Development Corporation and another No 2 , ChD 21 March 1989, the second defendants` submission that they should not be required to indemnify the first defendants for any damage paid to the plaintiffs (the difference between the price paid by the plaintiffs and the true market value) was accepted. Indemnification could not be awarded under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 as there was no reason for believing the relationship between first and second defendants was other than a normal client and solicitor conveyancing relationship in which it would be absurd if the solicitor owed a duty of care to the other party to the conveyance.
In CEMP Properties (UK) Ltd v Dentsply Research and Development Corporation and another No 2 , ChD 21 March 1989, the second defendants` submission that they should not be required to indemnify the first defendants for any damage paid to the plaintiffs (the difference between the price paid by the plaintiffs and the true market value) was accepted. Indemnification could not be awarded under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 as there was no reason for believing the relationship between first and second defendants was other than a normal client and solicitor conveyancing relationship in which it would be absurd if the solicitor owed a duty of care to the other party to the conveyance.