000			01564cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS44162
008			090401t1991 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u45597
041			_aeng
245			_aWatts and another v Morrow
260			_c1991
350			_a0
490			_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v(1991) CILL 640-642(3)
520			_aORC 5 November 1990 Action by purchasers (W) of a farmhouse claiming damages against a surveyor (M) for negligence . M carried out a structural survey on the property, mentioning some defects and making recommendations for repair . On moving in, W discovered defects in the house and that the roof was due for a major overhaul. W criticised M`s report on the grounds that he had pointed out a defect and then wrongly reassured W that it could be dealt with as part of ordinary on-going maintenance and repair. In fact, it was necessary to carry out immediate and heavy expenditure on the property. ORC held that 1) the surveyor was negligent. Use of a dictating machine during the survey, which was held to be inconsistent with the RICS practice note on structural surveys, led to a report strong on immediate detail, but weak on reflective report; 2) damages should be assessed on the basis of cost of repairs for reasons given in Syrett v Carr and Neave (1990) and 3) general damages should be re
650			_aCASE LAW
650			_aABOUT RICS-RICS MEMBERS
650			_aMEASURE OF DAMAGES
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c28881 _d28881