000			01482cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS67547
008			040303n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125309
100			_aParisotti, M.
245			_aWhat might have been
260			_c2004
490			_aBuilding _v269(8318) 6 February 2004, 57(1)
520			_aDiscusses the concept of loss of a chance with reference to "J Sainsbury v Broadway Malyan and another ([1998] EWHC 302 (TCC)) ([1999] 61 Con LR 31). Here Sainsbury's supermarket was destroyed by an arsonist. It was alleged that its architect had failed to design an adequate firebreak wall between the storage area and the sales floor. The architect settled the claim at a £7.12m but in the course of the subsequent arbitration the judge stated that the architect merely caused Sainsbury's the loss of a chance of some 35% that the fire brigade might have been able to confine the fire to the store area. The architect should have settled at just 35% of the original settlement figure. Advises that a defendant in such cases should consider whether the claim should be construed as just the loss of chance, if this is the case then the damages may be substantially lower than the actual loss claimed.
590			_aABS
650			_aSHARPE V ADDISON
650			_aJ SAINSBURY PLC V BROADWAY MALYAN AND ANOTHER
650			_aCLAIM FOR DAMAGES
650			_aARCHITECTS' NEGLIGENCE
690			_aPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE-NEGLIGENCE
942			_n0
999			_c74222 _d74222