Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Requirements for a claim in negligence. |
1. A duty of care. 2. Breach of that duty of care. 3. Damage. 4. Causation. |
4 factors. |
|
|
Hedley Byrne v Heller Partners 1964 |
3rd party relying on professional advice can sue if is owed a duty of care if there is a 'special relationship' established. 1. Have a professional skill. 2. Knowledge that a 3rd party will be relying on the advice. 3. Reasonable for a 3rd party to rely on the given advice. |
3 factors for a 3rd party wanting to sue. |
|
|
Yianni v Edwin Evans & Sons 1982 |
90% of house buyers rely on mortgage valuations outside contract. Case establishes that a valuer can owe a duty of care to a person relying on the valuers report. Valuer did a "drive by" valuation and missed a vital feature that could have been seen with more care. |
90% of house buyers rely on mortgage report case. |
|
|
Smith v Eric S. Bush; Harris v Wyre Forest district council 1990 |
Basically the same as Yianni v Edwin Evans & Sons about 90% of homeowners in the lower end of the residential market rely on mortgage report. HOWEVER, this case says the exclusion clause will bite now as high value residential or commercial property owners can afford to have their own surveys and valuations undertaken. Therefore it's not reasonable to rely on mortgage report. |
Basically the same as Yianni v Edwin Evans & Sons but involves a successful exclusion clause. |
|
|
Scullion v Royal Bank of Scotland |
A property was bought for £300,000 and if the buyer has intended to live in the house he might have won compensation. However he was a professional and intended to let the property meaning it was considered unfair to rely on the advice of the surveyor. |
Similar to Yianni v Edwin Evans & Sons and Smith v Eric S. Bush v Wyre Forest District Council. Buy to let case. |
|
|
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957 |
Setting the standard of duty of care. A duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, the conduct of the ordinary competent practitioner. |
Duty of care |
|
|
Bells Hotels (1935) Ltd v Motion (1952) |
Be aware of straying outside your area of expertise. Case about a valuer from London valuing a house in Melton (outside his area of expertise), getting it wrong and it reselling 4 days later. He also had no experience in valuing hotels. |
Straying outside your area of expertise. |
|
|
Hipkins v Jack Cotten Partnership 1989 |
Follow the trail of suspicion. This case was due to a failure to investigate cracks. |
Trail of suspicion. |
|
|
Lloyd v Butler 1990 |
A professional must clearly alert the client to any defects. This is important if the client is relying on the report. |
Alerting the client. |
|
|
Singer v Friedlander v John D. Wood |
Margin of error test. Valuations must fallen with a certain margin of error (10% each way) from true value. This case the valuer hadn't even seen the site, he'd just sent his junior assistant to do it! (Straying outside area of expertise ). |
|
|
|
Corisand Investments Ltd v Druce & Co 1978 |
Margin of error test relating to hotels. Applicable bracket equates to 15% either way. |
Margin of error test for hotels |
|
|
What is Causation? |
Did the defendants careless act cause the claimants losses? Other events which occurred might have been said to cause the loss such as the nature of the market. |
|
|
|
Pritchard v Salmon 1988 |
Causation example case. A valuation was found to be negligent by the court. However, the property was found to be virtually unsaleable in any event so the loss was not attributable to the negligence rather the market conditions. On the but for test this case would have been 'no' so the liability was not established. |
Causation case example. |
|
|
SAAMCO South Australian Asset Management v York Montague Ltd 1996 |
Case for establishing both causation in surveying and the assessment of damage generally. Case where negligence was found in large-scale valuation. However surveyors were only held liable for the loss represented by the difference between their negligent valuation and the true value at that time. Their instructions went no further than instructions to value so they didn't have to pay for the losses associated with the collapse of the market. |
Causation and the assessment of damage generally. |
|
|
Farley v Skinner 2001 |
No financial loss in case involving professional service. Case about surveyor who was specifically asked by purchaser about if there was aircraft noise which needs negligently didn't do. The surveyor had to pay damages because the buyer had suffered exactly the type of inconvenience he tried to avoid. |
No financial loss - Damages still awarded. |
|
|
Kendall-Wilson Securities v Barraclough 1986 |
Contributory Negligence. Valuers were able to supply the court with evidence the client was partly responsible for the losses he had suffered. |
Contributory Negligence. |
