Term
|
Definition
Facts: Anns leased house off council. House was breaking because of poor foundations.
Issue: did the council owe a duty to inspect the building?
Held: Yes, recovery was allowed as there was material damage, despite there being no contractual relationship. (anns test created) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Is there sufficient relationship between proximity and foreseeability? If so a prima facie duty of care owed. |
|
|
Term
| D & F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners for England [1989] |
|
Definition
Facts: Church owned buildings built by contractor. Contractor sub-contracted plasters who negligently installed plaster. The plaster fell and injured someone.
Issue: Is contractor liable?
Held: Appeal allowed. Contractor not liable in the law of tort, as it is not negligence for failure to supervise sub-contractor. |
|
|
Term
| Murphy v Brentwood District Council 1991 |
|
Definition
Facts: Murphy sold his house at a significant loss because Brentwood DC failed to inspect his foundations.
Issue: Could Murphy recover his pure economic loss?
Held: NO, No recovery of pure economic loss without physical injury. THIS OVERRULED ANNS V MERTON LBC. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Robinsons entered into contract to buy property that was being constructed by PE Jones LTD. They later discovered on completion that there was a defective gas flue.
Issues: Do contractors owe pure economic loss's?
Held: No - complicated... didn't really understand. BUT this is the harsh ruling of pure economic loss. |
|
|
Term
| Defective Premises Act 1972 |
|
Definition
| Offers limited protection to purchaser. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Pure economic loss compensable under losses due to negligence. |
|
|
Term
| Can a surveyor exclude liability ? |
|
Definition
| No, such a clause would fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 |
|
|
Term
| Scullion v Bank of Scotland 2011 |
|
Definition
Facts: Scullion sought to get a mortgage on a buy-to-let property. Bank commissioned a surveyor. They "overvalued" the property in both MV and MR. Scullion was unable to pay back mortgage with the MR.
Issue: Is bank liable
Decision: No.
Held: The buy-to-let was commercial- therefore Smith v Eric S Bush is irrelevant. Commercial buyers are sophisticated and so should use their own surveyors. |
|
|
Term
| Junior Books v Veitchi LTD 1983 |
|
Definition
Facts: Defendant was a subcontractor brought in to lay floor. Floor was defective and broke apart. Cost to repair it was too high for defendant, and as there was no direct contract between parties they didn't repair it.
Issue: Is there sufficient relationship between parties for duty of care to be owed.
Decision: Yes.
Held : Sufficiently close relationship between parties to create a relationship of care. Therefore claimant is able to recover financial losses. |
|
|
Term
| Simaan v Pilkington Glass 1988 |
|
Definition
Facts: Contractor Simaan subcontracted work for a glass wall to T. T was supplied glass from Pilkington Glass. The glass was nonuniform. This resulted in Simaan receiving a reduced fee.
Issue: Is pilkington glass liable for the loss in fees?
Held: no
BUT WHY? EMAILED dr. Roberts to clear up why. |
|
|
