It appears that Brad and Chardonnay were subject to professional negligence, or more specific negligent misrepresentation. Professional negligence is very similar to general negligence, with one significant difference being that you cannot claim economic loss under general negligence, but you can do so professionally (provided specific criteria are met). are filled). To make a successful claim for this form of negligence, there are four requirements that must be met; establishing a duty of care, evidence of the breach of that duty of care, the damages (this may include economic loss) and establishing that the beach caused the damage. If even one of these conditions is not met or is absent, the file will fail. To bring a claim for professional negligence, you must first establish that there is a duty of professional care owed to the claimant. The most significant case in professional negligence is Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. Indeed, for the first time it established that a third party relying on a statement made to him made may be owed compensation. duty of care on the part of the author of this statement. The outcome of Hedley Byrne v Heller Partners (1964) established that a duty of care would be owed (in relation to representations) where there is a "special relationship" between the giver and recipient of the statement. notice or declaration. Despite this, the definition of a “special relationship” has not been fully defined, but it tends to meet these three requirements; the plaintiff's reliance on the defendant's particular skill and judgment; knowledge, or reasonable expectation of knowledge on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff relied on the statement; and that it is reasonable middle of paper...clauses must pass the test of reasonableness. In Smith v Eric Bush [1989] (1990 AC 831), a surveyor sought to exclude liability for negligent misstatements when carrying out mortgage valuations. The disclaimer excluded any liability to any third party relying on its advice. it was held that there was no contractual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and that this did not preclude the existence of a duty of care. This decision was subject to subsection 2(2) of the UCTA and was found to be unreasonable. As this case is so similar to that of Brad and Chardonnay, one can only assume that the same verdict would be returned in respect of Briks & Mortimer Chartered Surveyors' exclusion clause. In conclusion, I would advise Brad and Chardonnay to exercise their right to seek damages. of the surveyor as they have strong arguments, based on the relevant cases, evidence and legislation explained in this essay.