The surveyor had been appointed by the lender to survey a residential property for a purchaser client of the lender. Since the surveyor has missed to include the information about a damaged roof in the report, it is a negligent behaviour and can cause severe valuation difference to the lender and the purchaser’s ability to purchase the house. The negligence of the surveyor is a tort and is liable to be claimed against by the purchaser if they purchase and find about the damaged roof later. They can also claim reduction in valuation from the lender as it had been vicariously involved in the transaction by being the appointee of the surveyor.The purchasers have the full right of claiming the losses incurred by them from the lender and the surveyor. If they have not made a purchase decision and find out before, then they have the choice of cancelling the purchase decision or requesting a reassessment of the residential property. Thus, the surveyor is held liable for the tort of negligence and is liable for the losses incurred by the lender and the purchaser.
Case study 2
Amy has decided to grow her own vegetables in her garden backyard and this is her right to do so, unless it does not harm any other neighbours and causes any kind of nuisance to them. Also, it is permissible only when the law states that it is advisable under law to grow one’s own vegetables. If the country law is stating that it is permissible, then Amy has the right to grow her own vegetables and use reasonable means to conduct it without causing nuisance to the neighbours. Amy further brings in lots of chickens and cockerels that roam in her garden freely and make noises of crowing and all sorts. This noise is some kind of a nuisance to the next door neighbour Sergei, due to which he cannot roam in his garden freely and is woken up abruptly one day at 6am. This is a nuisance to Sergei and a tort of nuisance is applicable to Amy who has brought in these animals which make a lot of noise and disturb Sergei.
Considering that Amy has brought the chickens and cockerels into her garden, it is a direct nuisance as she knew that such animals cause noises and this can be a nuisance to the neighbours in addition to Sergei. Amy has the right to grow vegetables in her garden if it is permissible by law of property in the UK. Considering it is permissible, she has done the lawful thing of obeying the law. However, her act of bringing in the chickens and cockerels is a thing which is prone to cause nuisance to the neighbours. It is undeniable that Amy did not know of the noise that the chickens and cockerels make and this is a tort of nuisance to the neighbours. Amy is liable for the nuisance caused to Sergei and his inability to roam in her garden due to the chickens and cockerel making noise. Additionally, Sergei has a right to claim the emotional damage caused to her in addition to any other damage that she can prove to Amy.The smell of the fertilisers used by Amy is also causing a loss of activity to Sergei as he is not able to roam freely in her garden. This is a nuisance caused by Amy due to which Sergei has to keep his doors and windows closed most of the time. Amy is liable for the causes of nuisance to Sergei and it is her duty to fulfil the damages under the tort of nuisance as she has been lacking a duty of care and is intentionally causing a nuisance with her knowledge of the noise being a nuisance to the neighbour.