Suing an Estate Agent

Margot123

OP, why are you asking the advice of strangers on here when you appear to have ample personal experience in litigation?

As for 'the snail in the ginger beer'..........most of us who did A Level Law will have covered that case. It's used to grab the attention of those new to legal studies. It does not mean the case bears any relation to the event of suing an estate agent.

david1951

OP: "I think X. What do others think?"

Others: Y

OP:

The_Deep wrote: »

Oh dear,

steampowered, I do not think that I have seen more misinformation recently than that contained in your post. Might I suggest some research before you next post, I certainly do not appreciate being called a liar, and/or playing games.

And why do you "very much doubt " that I brought the case under Tort? or that concealment of an HRN and issuing a false instrument are not breaches of a duty of car? DJ Jones found that they were.

Rosier, I do not know how they sent it, I did not receive it.m

allypally, of course I am a customer, just as, when I buy a Mars Bar in Tesco, I am a customer. Did you not read Donoghue v Stephenson?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson.

For others who think that contract law applies, it does not, in Tort no contract is required.

Are you this combative in real life? No wonder you go around suing everyone!

Did your solicitor receive the MoS before carrying out the searches?

davidmcn

david1951 wrote: »

Did your solicitor receive the MoS before carrying out the searches?

I asked this earlier, to no response.

The_Deep

I do not know what my solicitor received. My only concern is that I only received one MoS. I do not know when he received a MOS or when he applied for searches. It has no relevance.

steampowered

bargepole wrote: »

Wrong on all counts.

I prepared the pleadings for this litigation, and represented Mr Deep at the hearing.

There was no contract existing between the proposed buyer and seller at the time the offer was made and accepted, in English law (but not in Scotland) no contract exists until exchange has taken place.

Our argument was that the seller did have a duty of care towards the buyer, in that he was obliged to inform the buyer of the HRN, which means that the property can't be sold without permission of the seller's wife, and he also had a statutory duty when completing the Property Information Questionnaire (form TA6).

By negligently breaching these duties, he caused the buyer to suffer losses, in the form of unnecessary expenditure on surveyors and solicitor fees.

The Judge agreed with all our arguments, and awarded the claim.

The Op talked about suing an estate agent. Your post talks about suing the seller. Which is it? The two are completely different.

I don't know what happened in the case you are referring to as I wasn't there and you haven't posted a link to any transcript or judgment.

However, your description runs contrary to the basic tort law that any law student learns in the first couple of weeks.

It is settled law that the existence of a 'duty of care' is required for a negligence claim, and that somebody else's agent does not owe you a duty of care. Basic negligence cases such as Hedley Byrne v Heller are very clear on that.

You may well have won your case, but I suspect that the judge's reasoning was slightly different to what you describe.

The_Deep

There are two separate events, recently I sued a seller and won, BP was my Lay Rep, this thread is about a naughty EA.

and that somebody else's agent does not owe you a duty of care.

What, not even if their sign falls and hits you on the head? Not even if you trip on their frayed carpet? Not even if they knowingly try to market a house which they know cannot be sold? Shall I go on?

Steampowered is it not time you stopped posting mis-information?

davidmcn

The_Deep wrote: »

I do not know what my solicitor received. My only concern is that I only received one MoS. I do not know when he received a MOS or when he applied for searches. It has no relevance.

It would seem to be rather useful evidence of what the estate agent did or didn't distribute.

steampowered

The_Deep wrote: »

What, not even if their sign falls and hits you on the head? Not even if you trip on their frayed carpet? Not even if they knowingly try to market a house which they know cannot be sold? Shall I go on?

A duty of care would be owed by an estate agent in relation to putting up signs and ensuring that their offices are safe.

But a duty of care is not owed to potential buyers in relation to the statements they make. It doesn't matter how careless the statement was or even if it was made negligently - you still don't have a legal claim for negligence if there is no duty of care.

A duty of care to ensure that a statement is accurate only arises where there is a special relationship between the person making the statement and the claimant or the defendant has assumed responsibility for the accuracy of the statement. A duty of care is not owed to the public at large. That has been clear since the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller, usually the second case any prospective lawyer learns about after Donoghue v Stevenson. Google for 'negligent misstatement' and read some of the articles that come up if you are unsure.

The caveat is that you could sue for a fraudulent statement because, unlike the situation with negligence claims, you do not need to prove the existence of a duty of care to claim for fraud.

A claim against the seller of a property you bought would be a very different situation ... you have a contractual relationship with the seller and as such you can sue a seller for negligent misrepresentation; you can't bring that type of claim against a third party estate agent.

A_Nice_Englishman

What is the desired outcome of all this? To score some points and a few hundred quid of an estate agent or to buy a house?

Assuming you haven't exchanged contracts you can just say that notwithstanding any previous correspondence you're now only prepared to pay £415,000 can't you? The vendor says yes or no and take it from there.

elmer

Oh dear you've just ruined his morning, he isnt looking for a simple solution he wants something to sue for....