Frost and Another v Moody Homes Ltd and Others; Hoskisson and Another v Donal Moody Ltd
Language: English Series: CILL ; (1989) CILL 505-507(2)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: ORC 2 March 1989 The plaintiffs (H) bought a house on a development by the Moody companies (M). H alleged that M was negligent and in breach of a NHBC contract by providing a house with faulty foundations . M refused to buy back the property but agreed to carry out repair works at their own expense and pay compensation to H. Despite this work, further cracks appeared in the house and engineers reports were sent to the insurers. The insurers expert prepared drawings and specification for underpinning and priced work that he considered necessary. He was firmly convinced that the house was suffering from heave . The total cost came to £87,161. In the end, H sold the house without carrying out the works and claimed for loss, inconvenience and distress and alleged that to mitigate their loss they sold the house for £105,000, but if it had not suffered defects the market value would have been £165,000, a loss of £60,000. ORC held 1) that in negligence M owed at the very least to H a duty t| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS41093 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 28180-1001 |
ORC 2 March 1989 The plaintiffs (H) bought a house on a development by the Moody companies (M). H alleged that M was negligent and in breach of a NHBC contract by providing a house with faulty foundations . M refused to buy back the property but agreed to carry out repair works at their own expense and pay compensation to H. Despite this work, further cracks appeared in the house and engineers reports were sent to the insurers. The insurers expert prepared drawings and specification for underpinning and priced work that he considered necessary. He was firmly convinced that the house was suffering from heave . The total cost came to £87,161. In the end, H sold the house without carrying out the works and claimed for loss, inconvenience and distress and alleged that to mitigate their loss they sold the house for £105,000, but if it had not suffered defects the market value would have been £165,000, a loss of £60,000. ORC held 1) that in negligence M owed at the very least to H a duty t