Image from Google Jackets

Platform Funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc (Formerly Halifax Plc) [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWCA Civ 930, 31 July 2008. When a surveyor had been retained to inspect a property for valuation; there was an obligation to inspect the correct property and inspecting the wrong property was a breach of contract, regardless of the attention to detail applied to the valuation carried out on the property surveyed. Appellant surveyors (B) appealed against an award of breach of contract granted to respondent mortgage lender (P). B had surveyed a property prior to P issuing a mortgage against it. The mortagee had defaulted on payments and P had repossessed the property and it transpired that B had been misled by the borrower into inspecting a different property. P argued that a shortfall of roughly £30 000 when the property was sold should be met by B. Held: appeal dismissed. The judge found against B, stating that when the surveyor took on professional duties, he assumed a duty to exercise a degree of skill and care at least equal to a competent member of his profession. If a professional was working with care he could not be found to be warranted against the fraud of another.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 144934-1001

[2008] EWCA Civ 930, 31 July 2008. When a surveyor had been retained to inspect a property for valuation; there was an obligation to inspect the correct property and inspecting the wrong property was a breach of contract, regardless of the attention to detail applied to the valuation carried out on the property surveyed. Appellant surveyors (B) appealed against an award of breach of contract granted to respondent mortgage lender (P). B had surveyed a property prior to P issuing a mortgage against it. The mortagee had defaulted on payments and P had repossessed the property and it transpired that B had been misled by the borrower into inspecting a different property. P argued that a shortfall of roughly £30 000 when the property was sold should be met by B. Held: appeal dismissed. The judge found against B, stating that when the surveyor took on professional duties, he assumed a duty to exercise a degree of skill and care at least equal to a competent member of his profession. If a professional was working with care he could not be found to be warranted against the fraud of another.