Legal report
Language: English Series: Architects` Journal ; 188(40) 5 October 1988, 85(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the decision in D & F Estates Ltd v The Church Commissioners and Others, HL 14 July 1988, see Abstract 39482. Concentrates on the implications for architects . A dispute arose after the discovery that plaster work in a flat proved to be defect ive. The flat owners sued the main contractor; the plastering was carried out by an independent subcontractor. It was held that the main contractor did not owe a duty of care to future occupiers of the flat to supervise the work of independent subcontractors. The cost of repairing the plaster was economic loss and consequently the builder was not liable in negligence .| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS39796 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 19011-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| ABS39793 Crisis, what crisis? | ABS39794 Crisis, what crisis ? | ABS39795 It all depends | ABS39796 Legal report | ABS39797 Loss claims outlawed | ABS39798 Value engineering | ABS39799 Weepholes` pros and cons |
Discusses the decision in D & F Estates Ltd v The Church Commissioners and Others, HL 14 July 1988, see Abstract 39482. Concentrates on the implications for architects . A dispute arose after the discovery that plaster work in a flat proved to be defect ive. The flat owners sued the main contractor; the plastering was carried out by an independent subcontractor. It was held that the main contractor did not owe a duty of care to future occupiers of the flat to supervise the work of independent subcontractors. The cost of repairing the plaster was economic loss and consequently the builder was not liable in negligence .