| 000 | 01110cam a2200241 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS66470 | ||
| 008 | 030227n2003 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u121461 | ||
| 100 | _aMurdoch, J. | ||
| 245 | _aPersonal remarks | ||
| 260 | _c2003 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v[03070 15 February 2003, 135(1) |
||
| 520 | _aDiscusses "Raja v Austin Gray" (CA Abs66380) (see also X119613 and WB3833-19) in which the CA overturned the QBD ruling that valuers acting on behalf of receivers in the repossession and resale of mortgaged property would owe a duty of care not only to clients but also to the borrower. Discusses the legal position of the receivers and the valuer with regards to duty of care. "Huish v Ellis" (QBD X1822) considered. CA held that the valuer (A) did not owe a direct duty of care to the borrower (R). | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aRAJA V AUSTIN GRAY | ||
| 650 | _aDUTY OF CARE | ||
| 650 | _aHUISH V ELLIS | ||
| 650 | _aTHIRD PARTIES | ||
| 650 | _aVALUATIONS | ||
| 650 | _aNEGLIGENCE | ||
| 690 | _aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c72181 _d72181 |
||