Robbie and Another v Graham and Sibbald
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 38 EG 124-126(3)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: Outer House of the Court of Session 8 June 1989. Scottish case involving action for damages by housebuyers (R), against G, a firm of chartered surveyors , who carried out a mortgage valuation survey on a house purchased by R. The report did not mention dry rot , which was subsequently discovered. There was no contractual relationship between R & G, the survey was carried out on behalf of the Leeds Permanent Building Society , but it was averred that G owed a duty of care to R. G relied on the disclaimer clause in the application form. The decisions in Smith v Eric S Bush and Harris v Wyre Forest DC HL, Abstract 40850, are immaterial as Part I of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 does not apply to Scotland . this includes the section restricting the effect of a disclaimer clause by reference to a test of "reasonableness". Held that the disclaimer clause was effective to displace G`s duty of care. Action dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS41442 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 30178-1001 |
Outer House of the Court of Session 8 June 1989. Scottish case involving action for damages by housebuyers (R), against G, a firm of chartered surveyors , who carried out a mortgage valuation survey on a house purchased by R. The report did not mention dry rot , which was subsequently discovered. There was no contractual relationship between R & G, the survey was carried out on behalf of the Leeds Permanent Building Society , but it was averred that G owed a duty of care to R. G relied on the disclaimer clause in the application form. The decisions in Smith v Eric S Bush and Harris v Wyre Forest DC HL, Abstract 40850, are immaterial as Part I of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 does not apply to Scotland . this includes the section restricting the effect of a disclaimer clause by reference to a test of "reasonableness". Held that the disclaimer clause was effective to displace G`s duty of care. Action dismissed.