000			01448cab a2200181 4500
001			ABS38650
008			090401t1987 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u11750
041			_aeng
245			_aHeinemann v Cooper and another
260			_c1987
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v284(6362) 28 November 1987, 1237-1240(3)
520			_aCA 4 March 1987. The plaintiff was interested in purchasing the lease of a flat from the defendant but wanted to know the extent of service charges before doing so. A price for the flat was agreed, subject to the usual inquiries, and subject to the levels of rates and service charge. As the flat had been refurbished no level of service charge had been fixed. It was agreed that a figure would be produced for the first year which would serve as a base for subsequent years, this figure being set at 250. On the basis of this contracts were exchanged. However the first bill for service charges was 800. It was not in dispute that the contract was induced by misrepresentation of the amount of service charge, although the correct amount should in fact have been 625 not 250. The plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for diminution in the value of the property attributable to the higher service charge with an award of 3,000 plus 483 interest being made. The defendants appealed against the
690			_aPROPERTY LAW AND PRACTICE-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c7501 _d7501