Consultant engineers were instructed to design a warehouse, the first floor of which, as they knew, was to be used for storing drums of oil that would be moved around by fork-lift trucks. The warehouse was built to the engineers’ design but after a few months’ use the first floor began to crack because it was not strong enough to bear the loads imposed on it. The main contractor, by whom the engineers had been employed, made a claim against them alleging that they had impliedly warranted that their design would produce a building fit for its intended use.
Held: Despite recognising that a professional man does not normally undertake an unqualified obligation to produce the desired result, the exchanges between the parties were such as to give rise to an implied term that the warehouse as designed would be fit for the purpose for which it was required. Those who provide professional services do not generally give an unqualified undertaking to produce the desired result.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Apply this to the employment of a professional man. The law does not usually imply a warranty that he will achieve the desired result, but only a term that he will use reasonable care and skill. The surgeon does not warrant that he will cure the patient. Nor does the solicitor warrant that he will win the case.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR
Citations:
[1975] 3 All ER 99, [1975] 1 WLR 1095, [1975] 2 Lloyds Rep 325
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Samuels v Davis 1943
When a dentist agrees to make a set of false teeth for a patient, there is an implied warranty that they will fit his gums. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Platform Funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc (Formerly Halifax Plc) CA 31-Jul-2008
The parties disputed the extent of duty owed by a surveyor to a lender relying on his valuation of a property to be loaned.
Held: The valuer’s appeal failed. The valuer had valued the wrong property, after being misled by the borrower. The . .
Cited – Thake v Maurice CA 1986
A vasectomy was performed. The husband was told that contraception precautions were not necessary but a child was born. The claim was brought in contract and in tort. The first instance court found no reason why public policy prevented the recovery . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.279928
