Image from Google Jackets

Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Covell Matthews Partnership

Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; (1987) SLT 452-459(8)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: Outer House 15 May 1986 The pursuers(P),owners of land in an industrial estate entered into a lease with a company tenant wherein the tenant undertook to have a warehouse built on the site to certain specifications and drawings as incorporated in the lease. The tenants contracted with the first defenders as architects and the second defenders as main contractors to carry out the work. The third and fourth defenders were subcontractors . As the result of an alleged departure from the specifications the roof leaked causing loss to P in the form of repair works and a loss of rental income. P claimed that the defenders having contracted with the tenant to conform to the specifications owed a duty of care to P as heritable proprietors and were liable for any loss caused by them not completing the works as they should have done. The defendents argued they were not liable because they had contracted with the tenant before P had bought the site and because P had engaged their own surveyor .
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS37861 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 7213-1001

Outer House 15 May 1986 The pursuers(P),owners of land in an industrial estate entered into a lease with a company tenant wherein the tenant undertook to have a warehouse built on the site to certain specifications and drawings as incorporated in the lease. The tenants contracted with the first defenders as architects and the second defenders as main contractors to carry out the work. The third and fourth defenders were subcontractors . As the result of an alleged departure from the specifications the roof leaked causing loss to P in the form of repair works and a loss of rental income. P claimed that the defenders having contracted with the tenant to conform to the specifications owed a duty of care to P as heritable proprietors and were liable for any loss caused by them not completing the works as they should have done. The defendents argued they were not liable because they had contracted with the tenant before P had bought the site and because P had engaged their own surveyor .