CA 13 March 1987. Appeal by solicitor s (S) against decision holding that purchasers (P) of a flat were entitled to 7,000 damages for S`s misrepresentation that the flat was being sold with a roof terrace and an additional 500 for inconvenience and disappointment. The price paid for the flat was 45,000. In order to reduce stamp duty P suggested, and S agreed, that the price should be apportioned as 40,000 for the flat and 5,000 for chattels. After contracts were exchanged P discovered the lease did not include the roof terrace and sought damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, which were awarded with interest. S appealed to CA on two grounds: 1) P`s claim required them to rely on their own illegal conduct in making the false apportionment to reduce stamp duty, and 2) the award for inconvenience and disappointment should not have carried interest. On the first point CA held that, though it might be common practice, the court could not condone it. P`s possible illegality was unconnec