Threat of continuing subsidence: Admission of hindsight evidence
For modelling purposes, imagine that eight months ago you paid £5,000 for a horse on the strength of a favourable expert veterinary report. Today, you learn that, while there is nothing seriously wrong with the animal, a reasonably competent vet would have told you that: (a) the horse had at some time contracted a potentially serious disease; (b) some six months’ observation would be needed before one could say whether the disease was still present.
The horse, now largely in the clear, is worth £4,500. Its value (based upon a competent examination) at the date of purchase was £600. Suing the vet, you claim £4,400, relying upon the normal measure, which looks at the difference between the price paid and the value that should have been reported at the time. The vet contends that your rule has to give way to the fundamental rule that you cannot receive more than the amount that will put you into the position that you would have been in had he not been negligent. On that basis, after taking into account the value of the horseflesh acquired, a payment of £500 will compensate you for the outlay on the purchase.
Switching from equine pathology to houses and soil mechanics, it is noteworthy that the argument advanced by our vet was accepted in McKinnon v e.surv Ltd (formerly known as GA Valuation & Survey Ltd) [2003] 20 EG 149. The court had to admit hindsight evidence, where appropriate: see
Threat of continuing subsidence: Admission of hindsight evidence
For modelling purposes, imagine that eight months ago you paid £5,000 for a horse on the strength of a favourable expert veterinary report. Today, you learn that, while there is nothing seriously wrong with the animal, a reasonably competent vet would have told you that: (a) the horse had at some time contracted a potentially serious disease; (b) some six months’ observation would be needed before one could say whether the disease was still present.
The horse, now largely in the clear, is worth £4,500. Its value (based upon a competent examination) at the date of purchase was £600. Suing the vet, you claim £4,400, relying upon the normal measure, which looks at the difference between the price paid and the value that should have been reported at the time. The vet contends that your rule has to give way to the fundamental rule that you cannot receive more than the amount that will put you into the position that you would have been in had he not been negligent. On that basis, after taking into account the value of the horseflesh acquired, a payment of £500 will compensate you for the outlay on the purchase.
Switching from equine pathology to houses and soil mechanics, it is noteworthy that the argument advanced by our vet was accepted in McKinnon v e.surv Ltd (formerly known as GA Valuation & Survey Ltd) [2003] 20 EG 149. The court had to admit hindsight evidence, where appropriate: see Value with hindsight Estates Gazette 22 March 2003, p126 (John Murdoch).
