Watts v Morrow
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; (1991) CILL 687-692(6)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 30 July 1991. It was held that damages for a negligent survey should be based, not on the cost of repairs but on diminution in value of the property because the defects, since the owner, on discovering the defects had the choice to sell or repair. Also, the second appeal that the award for distress was excessive and wrong in law was allowed. It was held that a contract with a surveyor for a survey a claim for recovery of damages for mental distress was not allowed, only damages for physical discomfort and inconvenience. Reverses Syrett v Neave.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS45047 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 50647-1001 |
CA 30 July 1991. It was held that damages for a negligent survey should be based, not on the cost of repairs but on diminution in value of the property because the defects, since the owner, on discovering the defects had the choice to sell or repair. Also, the second appeal that the award for distress was excessive and wrong in law was allowed. It was held that a contract with a surveyor for a survey a claim for recovery of damages for mental distress was not allowed, only damages for physical discomfort and inconvenience. Reverses Syrett v Neave.