000			01832cam a2200313 4500
001			ABS68462
008			041122n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128069
100			_aMurdoch, J.
245		4	_aThe seeds of dissent
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0446) 13 November 2004, 149(1)
520			_aDiscusses the extent of lenders' obligations to achieve a proper price for repossessed property in the light of a recent case "Michael v Miller" ([2004] EWCA Civ 282, [2004] PLSCS 70). In this repossession case the judge had used the margin of error principle in determining the market value of the property for sale. Whilst the appellants counsel deemed this principle to be useful in valuer negligence claims, in this case it was considered inappropriate because the key point was whether the lenders through their agent had taken all reasonable steps to get the best sale price reasonably attainable, which the appellants claimed they had not. CA did not accept this argument and concurred that the margin of error principle was as appropriate to claims against mortgagees as against valuers and useful to a court in answering questions about a lender's judgement on reasonable price. View judgment at www.bailii.org.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aREASONABLE PRICE
650			_aVALUERS
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aMORTGAGEES
650			_aLENDERS
650			_aBORROWERS
650			_aMICHAEL V MILLER
650			_aMARGIN OF ERROR
650			_aREPOSSESSION
690			_aPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/282.html _zView the judgment on the BAILII website...
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/282.html _zView the judgment on the BAILII website...
942			_n0
999			_c118346 _d118346