000			01604cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS41412
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u29989
041			_aeng
245			_aCEMP Properties Ltd v Dentsply Research and Development Corp
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1989) 37 EG 133-136(3)
520			_aChD 21 March 1989. The third stage in proceedings brought by purchaser (C), against vendor (D). The first two stages established D`s liability under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and quantification of damages awarded to C for misrepresentation . The third stage, relates to a third party claim against D`s solicitors (S). The point at issue is whether S was liable to indemnify D against costs, and damages awarded to C. S contended that such an indemnity amounted to unjust enrichment for D. D`s claim was based on: 1) the liability of an agent to indemnify his principle in respect of damages suffered, through the agent`s failure to exercise due care or skill and 2) the provisions of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 s1(1). ChD rejected the suggestion that to indemnify D against the award of damages would be unjust enrichment, as the award was not based on calculations of market value, but on extra costs incurred by C. ChD found S to be liable on the first of the two points; S
650			_aDENTON HALL AND BURGIN
650			_aLIABILITY
650			_aRIGHT TO AIR
650			_aRIGHT TO LIGHT
650			_aVENDOR AND PURCHASER
690			_aLAND-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c20182 _d20182