Page 36 - مجلة الدراسات القضائية
P. 36
معهد التدريب والدرا�سات الق�ضائية م�ن الغالبية العظمى م�ن ه��ؤلاء الذين التقييم وا��ش�ترت الم�ن�زل ال�ذي بعد ذلك
لا ي�ستطيعون،ي�رغ�ب�ون في ��ش�راء م�ن�زل ان��ه��ارت �أج���زاء م�ن م�دخ�ن�ت�ه وح�ط�م�ت
ومن،تحمل نفقات �إج�راء تقييم م�ستقل وقد ادع�ت ال�سيدة �سميث.ال�دور العلوي
ف��إن إ�عفاء الخبير من م�سئوليته في,ث�م �أنه هناك التزام ببذل العناية الواجبة في
هذه الق�ضية غير معقول وبالتالي يكون تن�ش�أ م�سئولية,إ�ج�راء التقييم وم�ن ث�م
و�أن �شرط ا�ستبعاد الم�سئولية عن,�إيريك
.)2(لاغ ًيا وباطل ًا الخ�سارة �أو ا أل�ضرار التي تلحق بالممتلكات
وي�لاح�ظ في ه�ذه الق�ضية أ�ن المحكمة .)1(ب�سبب التقييم غير معقول
ق�د ق��ررت ا��س�ت�ب�ع�اد ��ش�رط الإع��ف��اء من
م���س�ئ�ول�ي�ة خ�ب�ير الم���س�اح�ة ع�ن الإه�م�ال ذه�ب مجل�س ال�ل�وردات إ�لى أ�ن المدعى
ل�ك�ون�ه غ�ي�ر م�ع�ق�ول وف�� ًق��ا ل�ل�ظ�روف ع�ل�ي�ه ي�ق�ع ع�ل�ى ع�ات�ق�ه ال��ت��زام ب�ب�ذل
وذل��ك في ��ض�وء,ال���ش�خ���ص�ي�ة ل�ل�م�دع�ي�ة ال�ع�ن�اي�ة تج��اه الم���ش�تري ال��ذي ي�ع�ل�م أ�ن�ه
ي�ن�وي الاع�ت�م�اد ع�ل�ى ت�ق�دي�ره وتقييمه
2- The plaintiff purchaser of a house was required للمبني دون أ�ن يعتمد على درا�سة أ�خرى
to pay for a surveyor's valuation for the purpose ف�الم���ش�تري يعتمد ع�ل�ى م�ه�ارة,م�ستقلة
of a mortgage application. The defendant يكون، وبالتالي.الخبير وتقديره للعقار
surveyor was acting for the building society الخبير م�سئول ًا عن الإهمال في التقدير
mortgagee to enable it to determine whether ، وع�ل�اوة ع�ل�ى ذل�ك.وت�ق�ي�ي�م�ه الخ�اط�ئ
the property provided adequate security for مثل الكثير،ذك�رت المحكمة أ�ن الم���ش�تري
the loan. The plaintiff detrimentally relied on
the valuation in her decision to buy the house, 1- A surveyor, Eric Bush, was employed by a
which lost value soon after her purchase due building society, Abbey National, to inspect
to faulty construction work. She sued the and value 242 Silver Road, Norwich.[1]
surveyor for damages. The House of lords held Eric Bush disclaimed responsibility to the
that the defendant surveyor owed a duty of purchaser, Mrs Smith, who was paying a fee
care to the intending purchaser who, as he of £36.89 to the building society to have the
knew, would rely upon his valuation without valuation done. The building society had a
obtaining an obtaining an independent similar clause in its mortgage agreement. The
survey. Even though the contract was property valuation said no essential repairs
between the building society and surveyor, it were needed. This was wrong. But Mrs Smith
was reasonably foreseeable that the purchaser relied on this and bought the house. Bricks
would rely on his skill and judgment in the from the chimney collapsed through the roof,
matter. Hence, the surveyor could be liable in smashing through the loft. Mrs Smith argued
negligence when his valuation turned out to there was a duty of care in tort to exercise
be considerably off the mark. Moreover, the care in making statements and then that the
court stated that an attempt by the surveyor clause excluding liability for loss or damage to
to disclaim liability for negligence was only property.
effective to the extent that it complied with
the reasonableness test in the Unfair Contract
Terms Act. But because the purchaser, much
like a majority of those buying a house,
could not afford an independent valuation,
the surveyor's disclaimer in this case was
unreasonable and thus null and void.
35
محمد محمد �سادات/الدكتور
