000			01567cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS37986
008			090401t1987 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u7909
041			_aeng
245			_aSaunders and Another v Edwards and Another
260			_c1987
350			_a0
490			_aAll England Law Reports _v(1987) 2 All ER 651-667(17)
520			_aCA 13 March 1987. Appeal by solicitor s (S) against decision holding that purchasers (P) of a flat were entitled to 7,000 damages for S`s misrepresentation that the flat was being sold with a roof terrace and an additional 500 for inconvenience and disappointment. The price paid for the flat was 45,000. In order to reduce stamp duty P suggested, and S agreed, that the price should be apportioned as 40,000 for the flat and 5,000 for chattels. After contracts were exchanged P discovered the lease did not include the roof terrace and sought damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, which were awarded with interest. S appealed to CA on two grounds: 1) P`s claim required them to rely on their own illegal conduct in making the false apportionment to reduce stamp duty, and 2) the award for inconvenience and disappointment should not have carried interest. On the first point CA held that, though it might be common practice, the court could not condone it. P`s possible illegality was unconnec
650			_aFIXTURES AND FITTINGS
650			_aHOUSE PURCHASE
650			_aPROPERTY
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c4813 _d4813