000			01484cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS39757
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u18819
041			_aeng
245			_aTenenbaum v Garrod
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(8835) 3 September 1988, 77-83(4)
520			_aCA 19 May 1988. An appeal from a decision in the ChD dismissing the plaintiff`s (T) claim alleging negligence against the defendant (G). Briefly, the family company was being liquidated and the liquidator was to dispose of property which comprised factory buildings and undeveloped land. The appellant (the present plaintiff) (T) agreed with the liquidator to purchase the property for £640,000. T subsequently withdrew his offer and made a revised offer of £400,000. This revised offer followed upon a letter from the respondent estate agent (the present defendant) (G), who wrote that considering the state of the property and market conditions "a realistic value for your purposes in the long term is £400,000." The liquidator rejected the offer and sold the property for £730,000. T claimed he had relied on this letter and sought damages in negligence against G. The judge accepted G`s evidence that the letter was not intended as a genuine independent valuation ; that it was known by T to be
650			_aPROPERTY SALE
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c12521 _d12521