Surveyor negligence
Surveyor negligence
- 2001
- Estates Gazette Case Summaries [2001] EGCS 21(1) (24/02/01) .
"Etam plc v Baker Almond (a firm)" ChD 29 January 2001. Etam (E) instructed Baker Almond (BA) to contact the owners of an old department store (K) with a view to purchase. BA made four offers on E's behalf, none of which were accepted. When K agreed to sell the premises to E through BA the surveyor wrote a 'letter of comfort' to E which stated, inter alia, that the price of £2.705m was justifiable as the store had an annual rental value of £125,000. A subsequent retrospective valuation, commissioned from DTZ by E, valued the store at £1.5m at the time of purchase in 1985. In 1999 E began proceedings, claiming that the advice in the letter had been given negligently. BA contended that this was not the case and that the claim was statute-barred. The claim was dismissed on the grounds that the valuation was not one that a reasonably competent surveyor could not have reached in the circumstances and that the limitation could not be disregarded as E should have sought expect advice when the alternative valuation was received in 1987.
COMFORT LETTERS
ETAM PLC V BAKER ALMOND (A FIRM)
LIMITATION
LIMITATION ACT 1980 S14A(10)
NEGLIGENCE
RETAIL PROPERTY
Valuation
"Etam plc v Baker Almond (a firm)" ChD 29 January 2001. Etam (E) instructed Baker Almond (BA) to contact the owners of an old department store (K) with a view to purchase. BA made four offers on E's behalf, none of which were accepted. When K agreed to sell the premises to E through BA the surveyor wrote a 'letter of comfort' to E which stated, inter alia, that the price of £2.705m was justifiable as the store had an annual rental value of £125,000. A subsequent retrospective valuation, commissioned from DTZ by E, valued the store at £1.5m at the time of purchase in 1985. In 1999 E began proceedings, claiming that the advice in the letter had been given negligently. BA contended that this was not the case and that the claim was statute-barred. The claim was dismissed on the grounds that the valuation was not one that a reasonably competent surveyor could not have reached in the circumstances and that the limitation could not be disregarded as E should have sought expect advice when the alternative valuation was received in 1987.
COMFORT LETTERS
ETAM PLC V BAKER ALMOND (A FIRM)
LIMITATION
LIMITATION ACT 1980 S14A(10)
NEGLIGENCE
RETAIL PROPERTY
Valuation