164:. Eric Bush disclaimed responsibility to the purchaser, Mrs Smith, who was paying a fee of £36.89 to the building society to have the valuation done. The building society had a similar clause in its mortgage agreement. The property valuation said no essential repairs were needed. This was wrong. But Mrs Smith relied on this and bought the house. Bricks from the chimney collapsed through the roof, smashing through the loft. Mrs Smith argued there was a duty of care in tort to exercise care in making statements and then that the clause excluding liability for loss or damage to property was unreasonable under 2(2) and 13(1) of
28:
245:
2 QB 223, the local authority was held liable to the
Ministry because of the failure of an employee of the authority to exercise reasonable skill and care in searching for entries in the local land charges register. The search certificate prepared by the clerk negligently failed to record a charge of
180:
For Mr and Mrs Harris
Anthony Colman QC (now Colman J), Malcolm Stitcher and David Platt appeared, and for Wyre Forest District Council and Mr Lee appeared Piers Ashworth QC and Nicholas J Worsley. Mrs Smith was represented by Robert Seabrook Q.C. and Philip Havers, while Eric S. Bush was represented
206:
The Lords decided that even though the defendants had issued a liability waiver, this could not stand up to the test of reasonableness under s.11. That was because the purchase of a house by a private citizen like Mrs Smith was bound to be one of the most expensive in a lifetime, and it was more
202:
an initial issue was the scope of the Act's coverage under s 13. Lord
Templeman said the Act regulated ‘all exclusion notices which would in common law provide a defence to an action for negligence.’ Lord Griffiths said s.13 was ‘introducing a ‘but for’ test in relation to the notice excluding
221:(1888) 39 ChD 39, a valuer instructed by a mortgagor sent his report to the mortgagee who made an advance in reliance on the valuation. The valuer was held liable in the tort of negligence to the mortgagee for failing to carry out the valuation with reasonable care and skill.
203:
liability’, so courts should decide whether a duty of care would exist but for the exclusion. Lord
Jauncey said the wording of s 13 was ‘entirely appropriate to cover a disclaimer which prevents a duty coming into existence.’
144:. First, it concerned the existence of a duty of care in tort for negligent misstatements, not made directly to someone relying on the statement. Second, it concerned the reasonableness of a term excluding liability under the
272:
207:
reasonable that a professional surveyor bear the risk of liability. The Lords did however say that not all exclusion clauses used by surveyors would be unreasonable, for instance in big property developments.
300:, the Abbey National was bound to obtain 'a written report prepared and signed by a competent and prudent person who is experienced in the matters relevant to the determination of the value' of the house.
254:, rather "from the fact that the person making it knows, or ought to know, that others, being his neighbours in this regard, would act on the faith of the statement being accurate."
189:
It was held that it was not unreasonable for the purchaser of a modest house to rely on the surveyors' evaluation, as it was such common practice. In this way the court extended
233:
241:
102:
177:. In this one, it was the Council that was the mortgagee. It also did the valuation. It also had a disclaimer, which was challenged by the home buyer.
364:
354:
384:
173:
225:
258:
349:
327:
145:
251:
359:
247:
374:
369:
106:
297:
293:
379:
94:
137:
90:
319:
27:
323:
311:
133:
217:
157:
141:
98:
343:
312:
265:
191:
129:
54:
199:
165:
161:
273:
Her
Majesty's Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc
250:, 268, rejected that a duty of care only arose when there was a
168:. The property was valued at £16,500 and bought for £18,000.
156:
A surveyor, Eric Bush, was employed by a building society,
234:
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd
112:
86:
81:
66:
61:
50:
42:
34:
20:
242:Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp
118:Lord Templeman, Lord Griffiths and Lord Jauncey
8:
246:£1,828 11s. 5d. in favour of the Ministry.
26:
17:
171:The case was joined with another appeal,
160:, to inspect and value 242 Silver Road,
285:
252:voluntary assumption of responsibility
195:liability to proximate third parties.
174:Harris v Wyre Forest District Council
7:
226:Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co
181:by Nigel Hague QC and Jane Davies.
14:
318:. Cavendish Publishing. pp.
365:1989 in United Kingdom case law
259:Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
146:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1:
355:English unfair terms case law
385:United Kingdom tort case law
107:Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
298:Building Societies Act 1986
294:Building Societies Act 1962
401:
314:Sourcebook on Contract Law
117:
25:
296:, now section 13 of the
95:Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
57:, 2 WLR 790; 1 AC 831
350:English tort case law
310:Oughton, D W (2000).
292:By section 25 of the
360:House of Lords cases
91:Lord Keith of Kinkel
375:Valuation (finance)
370:Negligence case law
148:, s 2(2) and s 11.
140:case, heard by the
126:Smith v Eric S Bush
21:Smith v Eric S Bush
122:
121:
392:
334:
333:
317:
307:
301:
290:
134:English tort law
82:Court membership
30:
18:
400:
399:
395:
394:
393:
391:
390:
389:
380:1989 in England
340:
339:
338:
337:
330:
309:
308:
304:
291:
287:
282:
248:Lord Denning MR
213:
187:
154:
12:
11:
5:
398:
396:
388:
387:
382:
377:
372:
367:
362:
357:
352:
342:
341:
336:
335:
328:
302:
284:
283:
281:
278:
277:
276:
269:
262:
255:
238:
230:
222:
218:Cann v Willson
212:
209:
186:
183:
158:Abbey National
153:
150:
142:House of Lords
120:
119:
115:
114:
110:
109:
103:Lord Griffiths
99:Lord Templeman
88:
87:Judges sitting
84:
83:
79:
78:
68:
64:
63:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:
44:
40:
39:
38:House of Lords
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
397:
386:
383:
381:
378:
376:
373:
371:
368:
366:
363:
361:
358:
356:
353:
351:
348:
347:
345:
331:
325:
321:
316:
315:
306:
303:
299:
295:
289:
286:
279:
275:
274:
270:
268:
267:
266:White v Jones
263:
261:
260:
256:
253:
249:
244:
243:
239:
236:
235:
231:
228:
227:
223:
220:
219:
215:
214:
210:
208:
204:
201:
196:
194:
193:
184:
182:
178:
176:
175:
169:
167:
163:
159:
151:
149:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
128:
127:
116:
113:Case opinions
111:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
69:
67:Prior actions
65:
60:
56:
53:
49:
46:20 April 1989
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
313:
305:
288:
271:
264:
257:
240:
232:
224:
216:
205:
197:
192:Hedley Byrne
190:
188:
179:
172:
170:
155:
138:contract law
125:
124:
123:
74:
70:
62:Case history
15:
73:QB 743 and
344:Categories
329:1843141515
280:References
200:UCTA 1977
166:UCTA 1977
51:Citations
229:2 KB 164
211:See also
185:Judgment
162:Norwich
43:Decided
326:
237:AC 465
198:Under
132:is an
130:UKHL 1
77:QB 835
75:Harris
55:UKHL 1
152:Facts
71:Smith
35:Court
324:ISBN
136:and
105:and
320:411
346::
322:.
101:,
97:,
93:,
332:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
