The Gazette 1949-1952

“ We are obliged for your instructions to act for you in the purchase o f this property, and shall be glad to prepare the conveyance and mortgage herein.” A t the time o f this correspondence the solicitors knew of the proposed conversion o f the bungalow into a dwelling house. Without the knowledge o f the solicitors the sale had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations o f the vendor, and the purchaser was awarded damages against the vendor on the basis o f the difference between the purchase price and the value o f the property as it stood without amenities, the existence o f which the vendor had represented. In reply to a requisition for the official search in respect o f the property, the solicitors received a letter from the clerk to the local council stating that “ no plans had been approved by the Council for the bungalow referred to in your requisition.” The solicitors informed the vendor who stated that he, personally, would obtain the necessary approval “ and make it right f o r ” the purchaser, but they did not inform the purchaser, and he completed the purchase without the knowledge that no plans had been approved for the original erection o f the bungalow, and that therefore, the local council might require it to be pulled down. In an action for damages for negligence against the solicitors it was held:— 1. That it was the solicitors duty to communicate the information to the prospective purchaser, and not merely to see that he obtained a good title and having failed to do so, they were liable for damages. 2. The measure o f the damages was the difference between the value of the property as it stood with a secure building and its value as diminished by the possibility that the local council might require the building to be pulled down. One o f the matters on which this case throws light is the extension o f duties imposed on solicitors in conveyancing matters by the social changes o f the present century. At one time it was considered that a solicitor’s only duty in a conveyancing transaction was to ensure, if acting for a purchaser, that his client obtained a good title to the property in accordance with the terms o f the contract. As recently as 1944 it was held in Yager v. Fishman & Anor. that a solicitor who acted generally for a client was not negligent in forgetting to notify the client of the approaching expiration o f the time for exercising an option to purchase premises. 55

the plaintiff applied in the office to have judgment entered under the provisions of Order X V , rule 3, of the Rules o f the Circuit Court. The County- Registrar refused to enter judgment on the ground apparently that it was not the practice to do so in such cases, and for the reason also that in an action of the kind involved interlocutory judgment only could be obtained, i.e., judgment subject to taxation. The plaintiff, accordingly, moved ex parte for an order directing the County Registrar to enter judgment for the amount claimed under the order and rule referred to. Judge Connolly, who, in his reserved judgment dealt fully with the authorities, stated that, in his view, an action by a solicitor against his client on foot o f a bill of costs, properly delivered, was, in essence, no different from any ordinary liquidated claim brought in respect o f moneys due for services rendered and work and labour done. The amount o f a bill o f costs was not pecuniary damages but a measured and ascertained sum. It thus fulfilled the definition o f a liquidated demand and fell within the provisions of Order X V , rule 3. The learned judge said that he could discover no principle by which could be supported the practice apparently prevailing in the Circuit Court office, o f refusing to enter judgment in an action by a solicitor for his untaxed costs in cases o f default o f appearance. He would, accordingly, accede to the motion and direct the County Registrar to enter judgment for the amount claimed without reference to taxation. {Irish Law Times & Solicitors' Journal). Negligence o f a solicitor I n Lake v. Bushby & Anor. (1949, 2. A ll E .R ., 964) the plaintiff was the purchaser o f certain property under a contract for sale with the first named defendant. The second defendant was the solicitor who acted for both vendor and purchaser. The property included a bungalow which had been erected during requisition by the Air Ministry, and the purchaser proposed to convert it into a dwelling house. He wrote to the solicitor defendant as follows :— “ I have negotiated the purchase o f a property a t --------- belonging to your client B. through S., Estate Agent, and I would greatly it appreciate if you would act on my behalf in connection with the conveyance and registration o f the property and the arranging o f the mortgage loan with the present owner B .”

The solicitors, in reply, wrote