Construction Law and Safety Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Construction Law and Safety - Essay ExampleThe offense is one of unbending liability, which means that it does non matter if the averment was intentional or negligent, exactly, rather, just that the account was do and that the statement was false. So, in this case, Jimmybuild Ltd., if they made a statement with regards to the condition of the building, any kind of statement to Nina along those lines, and did not mention the fact that the foundation was defective, they would be liable under the Property Misrepresentations Act 1991. A statement that contains an omission would make Jimmybuild Ltd. liable under the Act, so, because any statement regarding the condition of the property would contain that omission, Jimmybuild Ltd. would be liable. Peter, the surveyor, may be at risk of negligence. According Murdoch (2005) surveyors may be guilty of negligence when they do not use skill in preparing their reports and the homeowner relied upon the surveyors report (Murdoch, 2005, p. 1) . Privity of involve has historically been utilise as a defense on the part of the surveyor, as on that point was not privity of contract mingled with the homeowner and the surveyor. Therefore, historically, the homeowner could not recover damages from the surveyor. However, the case of Hedley Byrne v. Heller 1964 AC 465 changed this rule. Heldley concerned appellants who were advertisers with a client named Easipower. Easipower defaulted on contracts to advertise on certain television and radio programmes that were procured by the appellants, making the appellants in person liable on the contracts. The appellants, however, had relied upon reports prepared by the defendant bank in which the defendant bank, Heller and Partners, which express that Easipower was creditworthy, when, in fact, Easipower was not. The lower court ruled that the bank did not owe a duty of economic aid to the Appellants, because the lack of privity of contract. However, the decision in the House of Lord s was that proximity was not inevitable to establish when attempting to show whether there was a duty of care owed (Hedley Byrne v. Heller 1964 AC 465). Therefore, privity of contract is not necessary, and an individual may work on a surveyor for negligent misstatements or omissions. Yianni v. Edwin Evans & Sons 1982 QB 438 carried this principle through, and this case is on point for the facts at hand. In Yianni, the surveyors made a representation that a house was suitable for a loan of ?12,000. However, because of structural and foundational flaws, the house was actually worth very little, yet the appellant relied upon the representation that the house was worth ?12,000 and procured a loan establish upon this representation. The court still found in favor of the appellants, thus establishing the fact that privity of contract was not necessary for the appellants to collect damages. (Yianni v. Edwin Evans & Sons 1982 QB 438). Thus, Yianni established that not only does there not need to be privity of contract to sue, but that, if the individual who relies upon the report is of modest means, there are no grounds for contributory negligence. These cases establish that privity of contract is not necessary. Nina did not have a contract with the surveyors, but, rather, had a contract with Jimmybuild Ltd., but this does not matter, she offer still sue Peter and