000			01652cab a2200253 4500
001			ABS41411
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u29982
041			_aeng
245			_aCEMP Properties Ltd v Dentsply Research and Development Corp... (No 2)
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1989) 36 EG 90-100; 37 EG 126-133(10)
520			_aChD 24 February 1989. The second stage of proceedings brought by a purchaser (C) against a vendor (D). Litigation arose out of statements made before a contract, for the sale of premises in Soho . In the first stage of the proceedings, C`s claim for misrepresentation was upheld. In the second stage, the point at issue was quantification of damages . The misrepresentation related to failure to disclose deeds which revealed rights to light and air, enjoyed by the property adjoining C`s. C had started re development work these rights were revealed; consequently the schemes had to be partially redesigned and completion was delayed. Three alternative bases of claim were put forward: 1) £514,984 on the developer`s loss basis ; 2) £750,000 onjthe market value basis or 3)£854,471 on the hybrid basis. The judge emphasised the difficulty in making residual valuation s of prospective developments, because so much is based on assumption. In the end damages were assessed on the additional constru
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aPROPERTY
650			_aRIGHT TO AIR
650			_aRIGHT TO LIGHT
650			_aValuation _96273
650			_aVENDOR AND PURCHASER
690			_aLAND-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c20178 _d20178