000			01591cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS41441
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u30172
041			_aeng
245			_aBere and Parchment v Slades
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v1989 CILL 524-525(2)
520			_aORC 20 July 1989. The plaintiffs (B) purchased a property for which a scheme 1 valuation had been undertaken, and on the basis of the report, B went ahead with the purchase. The second plaintiff (P), thought it was a surveyor `s report, not a valuation , and if a major problem had been indicated, would not have bought the house. Subsequently it was found that the cellar walls had been constructed with a form of concrete found to be unstable - this condition would not necessarily have been found with a full structural survey, and the question arose as to whether specific visible defects were sufficient to warrant that the surveyor had a duty to follow up any greater problems which might exist, before undertaking a valuation. On hearing the evidence, the judge concluded that the damage asserted by the plaintiffs had not been sufficient to give rise to any duty not to value or to refer for greater inspection and the plaintiffs` claim failed.
650			_aHARRIS V WYRE FOREST DC
650			_aMORTGAGE VALUATIONS
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aSMITH V ERIC S BUSH
650			_aSTRUCTURAL SURVEYS
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c20326 _d20326