McCullagh v Lane Fox & Partners Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1996) 21 EG 104-116(13)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 December 1995. After exchange of contracts M was informed by his architects that the true area of the gardens was 0.48acres rather than the 0.92acres as stated in the sale particulars and confirmed by an assistant director of the agents (L). M claimed that as a result or oral negligent misstatements of the agents representative he had suffered loss and damage because had he known that the true area of the gardens was just under half an acre either he would not have purchased or he would have made a lower offer. Held in court below that although L owed a duty of care to M, M had sufferd no loss. M appealed. Appeal dismissed. M had suffered a loss in value of the property. However although an estate agent owed a duty of care to a purchaser L were not liable for this loss. "Hedley Byrne v Heller" applied.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS55237 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 15045-1001 |
CA 19 December 1995. After exchange of contracts M was informed by his architects that the true area of the gardens was 0.48acres rather than the 0.92acres as stated in the sale particulars and confirmed by an assistant director of the agents (L). M claimed that as a result or oral negligent misstatements of the agents representative he had suffered loss and damage because had he known that the true area of the gardens was just under half an acre either he would not have purchased or he would have made a lower offer. Held in court below that although L owed a duty of care to M, M had sufferd no loss. M appealed. Appeal dismissed. M had suffered a loss in value of the property. However although an estate agent owed a duty of care to a purchaser L were not liable for this loss. "Hedley Byrne v Heller" applied.