000			01644cab a2200301 4500
001			ABS50028
008			090401t1993 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u73738
041			_aeng
245			_aCampbell v Meacocks ( a firm)
260			_c1993
350			_a0
490			_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v1993 CILL 886-888(3)
520			_aQBD 3 October 1993. C purchased a bungalow in 1985 for which the building society had employed M, a firm of surveyors, to produce an inspection report and valuation which was paid for by C. In the report four minor matters were referred to. In 1991 C noticed cracks appearing and called in a structural engineer who reported structural movement due to subsidence. The original valuation had been £49,000 and these proceedings were brought on the basis that the true valuation should be £20,000. M denied liability on the grounds that as the problem was spotted six years after the survey it was barred by Limitation Act 1980 s2. C claimed to be entitled to rely on s14A of the Act. This was upheld on the grounds that the section applied to negligent mistatement and that they did not have the knowledge required to bring an action in repect of damage until 1991.
650			_aHORBURY V CRAIG HALL & RUTLEY
650			_aLIMITATION ACT 1980 S 14A
650			_aLIMITATION ACT 1980 S2
650			_aMORTGAGE SURVEY
650			_aMORTGAGE VALUATION
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
650			_aSTRUCTURAL MOVEMENT
650			_aSUBSIDENCE
650			_aSURVEYORS
650			_aVALUERS
690			_aPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c46553 _d46553