Heinemann v Cooper and another
Heinemann v Cooper and another
- 1987
- Estates Gazette 284(6362) 28 November 1987, 1237-1240(3) .
CA 4 March 1987. The plaintiff was interested in purchasing the lease of a flat from the defendant but wanted to know the extent of service charges before doing so. A price for the flat was agreed, subject to the usual inquiries, and subject to the levels of rates and service charge. As the flat had been refurbished no level of service charge had been fixed. It was agreed that a figure would be produced for the first year which would serve as a base for subsequent years, this figure being set at 250. On the basis of this contracts were exchanged. However the first bill for service charges was 800. It was not in dispute that the contract was induced by misrepresentation of the amount of service charge, although the correct amount should in fact have been 625 not 250. The plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for diminution in the value of the property attributable to the higher service charge with an award of 3,000 plus 483 interest being made. The defendants appealed against the
CA 4 March 1987. The plaintiff was interested in purchasing the lease of a flat from the defendant but wanted to know the extent of service charges before doing so. A price for the flat was agreed, subject to the usual inquiries, and subject to the levels of rates and service charge. As the flat had been refurbished no level of service charge had been fixed. It was agreed that a figure would be produced for the first year which would serve as a base for subsequent years, this figure being set at 250. On the basis of this contracts were exchanged. However the first bill for service charges was 800. It was not in dispute that the contract was induced by misrepresentation of the amount of service charge, although the correct amount should in fact have been 625 not 250. The plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for diminution in the value of the property attributable to the higher service charge with an award of 3,000 plus 483 interest being made. The defendants appealed against the