Image from Google Jackets

Hussey and another v Eels and another

Language: English Series: Weekly Law Reports ; (1990) 2 WLR 234-246(7)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 30 October 1989. Plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Hussey (H), purchased a bungalow from Mr and Mrs Eels (E) in February 1984. This was in reliance to answers to pre-contract inquiries which included the misrepresentation that the building had not been subject to subsidence . The cost of the work to stabilise the foundations was estimated at £17,000, which was beyond H`s means. Three applications for planning permission were made before consent was given to demolish the bungalow and construct two buildings on the site. In October 1986 H sold the site to a developer for £78,500. H brought an action against E claiming damages for negligent misrepresentation . The damages started at £3905, were later increased to £17,000. At the original hearing the judge found for H but did not award damages as he considered that H had been recompensed by sale of the site. H appealed. The CA found that since the sale of the site by H was not contiguous with the original purchase that H owed no duty to E to mit
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42237 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 35586-1001

CA 30 October 1989. Plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Hussey (H), purchased a bungalow from Mr and Mrs Eels (E) in February 1984. This was in reliance to answers to pre-contract inquiries which included the misrepresentation that the building had not been subject to subsidence . The cost of the work to stabilise the foundations was estimated at £17,000, which was beyond H`s means. Three applications for planning permission were made before consent was given to demolish the bungalow and construct two buildings on the site. In October 1986 H sold the site to a developer for £78,500. H brought an action against E claiming damages for negligent misrepresentation . The damages started at £3905, were later increased to £17,000. At the original hearing the judge found for H but did not award damages as he considered that H had been recompensed by sale of the site. H appealed. The CA found that since the sale of the site by H was not contiguous with the original purchase that H owed no duty to E to mit