Unlike Tony Bingham, I see no hole in the Defective Premises Act as a result of the Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Jenson vs Faux. Tony wants the duty imposed by section 1 of the act to apply much more widely. Let us look again at the obligations imposed by section 1. There are some remarkable aspects to it. First, forget all that stuff you know about privity of contract. It doesn't matter that you've never heard of Mr and Mrs Blogs who bought that house years after you did the work there. They don't need a contract with you since they can pursue you under the act anyway. The act also imposes a more stringent obligation than many builders and professional consultants will normally be willing to agree to in the contract. Proving that you used reasonable skill and care when carrying out the works will be no defence to a claim under the act. So, even though your lawyers crossed out that fitness-for-purpose obligation in the building contract, it still applies.
展开▼
