Cann v Willson (1888) 39 Ch D 39, is an English tort law case, concerning negligent valuation.
| Cann v Willson | |
|---|---|
| Citation(s) | 39 Ch D 39 |
Facts edit
A valuer instructed by a mortgagor sent his report to the mortgagee who made an advance in reliance on the valuation.
Judgment edit
The valuer was held liable in the tort of negligence to the mortgagee for failing to carry out the valuation with reasonable care and skill.
Significance edit
The decision in Cann v Willson was retreated from in subsequent cases including Derry v Peek,[1] Le Lievre v Gould,[2] and Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co,[3] but the principle that a third party could have a tort claim for negligent misstatement was brought back with the decision in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd.[4]
References edit
- ^ (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- ^ [1893] 1 QB 491
- ^ Stevens, Robert (1964). "Hedley Byrne v. Heller: Judicial Creativity and Doctrinal Possibility". The Modern Law Review. 27 (2): 121–166. ISSN 0026-7961.
- ^ Mulheron, Rachael (2020). Principles of tort law (2nd ed.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 169–171. ISBN 978-1-108-72764-8.
See also edit
 | This article related to English law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |