- Published on
PSmith v Eric S Bush & Harris v Wyre Forest DC
This case, heard in the House of Lords (1989), addresses surveyor liability to house purchasers. Two cases, with similar facts but differing lower court outcomes, were consolidated.
Core Facts:
Suggested a different outcome might be possible in scenarios involving commercial properties or very expensive houses, where obtaining an independent survey would be a more reasonable expectation of the purchaser.
Key Takeaways & Study Points:
This case, heard in the House of Lords (1989), addresses surveyor liability to house purchasers. Two cases, with similar facts but differing lower court outcomes, were consolidated.
Core Facts:
- Plaintiffs (Purchasers): Bought houses relying on surveys conducted by defendant surveyors (for mortgage lenders).
- Mortgagee Clauses: Mortgage agreements excluded surveyor liability to purchasers; surveys were explicitly "for the mortgagees' purposes only."
- Defective Houses: Houses had defects the surveyors should have identified.
- Duty of Care (Tort): Did the surveyors owe a duty of care to the purchasers, despite the exclusion clauses? Held: Yes. The surveyors, as professionals providing paid services, knew purchasers often relied on their valuations (especially given the cost and inconvenience of independent surveys). The surveyors were aware that their negligence could have disastrous consequences for purchasers.
- Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA): Did the exclusion clauses fall within UCTA? Held: Yes. The clauses attempted to limit liability for negligence.
- Fair and Reasonable Test (UCTA): Were the exclusion clauses "fair and reasonable" under UCTA? Held: No. The court considered the context; it wasn't fair or reasonable for surveyors to completely evade liability, considering the significant reliance purchasers place on their work and the potential severe consequences of surveyor negligence.
- Emphasized the professional nature of surveyors and their awareness of purchaser reliance.
- Highlighted the financial constraints faced by many purchasers, preventing them from commissioning separate surveys.
- Stressed the surveyors' knowledge of the potential for devastating financial consequences from their negligence.
Suggested a different outcome might be possible in scenarios involving commercial properties or very expensive houses, where obtaining an independent survey would be a more reasonable expectation of the purchaser.
Key Takeaways & Study Points:
- Duty of Care in Negligence: This case extends the duty of care beyond the parties to a contract. Focus on the factors determining the existence of a duty of care in negligence (foreseeability of harm, proximity, and fairness).
- UCTA 1977: Understand how UCTA applies to exclusion clauses limiting liability for negligence. Pay special attention to the "fair and reasonable" test and the factors considered in determining fairness and reasonableness.
- Professional Liability: Consider the implications for other professions where clients rely on their expertise and where errors can have serious financial repercussions.
- Limitations: Note Lord Griffiths' suggestion of a different outcome in high-value or commercial contexts. Consider the factors that might make an independent survey a reasonable expectation in such scenarios.
0 Comments