Shaw and another v Halifax (SW) Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1994) 26 EG 142-146(5)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: ORB 11 February 1994. A preliminary issue in a claim by S against H for damages for a negligent valuation. The issue was whether S had suffered any loss and if so were entitled additionally to damages for inconvenience. Held, S were entitled to the difference between the market value of the property in August 1988 (£42,000) and its value at the time subject to defects (£37,000). Had S been advised of the defects, they would not have proceeded, or would have negotiated a reduction in price to reflect existence of defects; they paid too much because they were not told of the defects. S were also entitled to recover, subject to proof, items of expenditure incurred in consequence of H`s breach of duty, which did not form part of the repair costs; also damages for physical inconvenience and discomfort, subject to proof.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS50957 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 3015-1001 |
ORB 11 February 1994. A preliminary issue in a claim by S against H for damages for a negligent valuation. The issue was whether S had suffered any loss and if so were entitled additionally to damages for inconvenience. Held, S were entitled to the difference between the market value of the property in August 1988 (£42,000) and its value at the time subject to defects (£37,000). Had S been advised of the defects, they would not have proceeded, or would have negotiated a reduction in price to reflect existence of defects; they paid too much because they were not told of the defects. S were also entitled to recover, subject to proof, items of expenditure incurred in consequence of H`s breach of duty, which did not form part of the repair costs; also damages for physical inconvenience and discomfort, subject to proof.