It appears that Brad and Chardonnay were subjected to professional negligence or a more specific negligent error. Professional negligence is very similar to general negligence, one of the significant differences is that it is not possible to claim economic loss under general negligence, but it is possible under professional negligence (provided specific criteria are met). To make a successful claim for this form of negligence there are four requirements that must be met; establish a duty of care, prove that that duty of care was breached, damage (this may include economic loss) and establish that the beach caused the damage. If even one of these requirements is not met or absent, the case will fail. To initiate a professional negligence claim, you must begin by establishing that there is a duty of professional care owed to the plaintiff. The most significant case in relation to professional negligence is Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. This is because for the first time it established that a third party who relies on a representation made to him may be owed a duty of care by of whoever drafted this declaration. The outcome of Hedley Byrne v Heller Partners (1964) established that a duty of care would be owed (in relation to statements) where there is a "special relationship" between the person giving and the person receiving the advice or statement. Despite this, the definition of "special relationship" has not been fully defined, however it tends to satisfy these three requirements; the plaintiff's reliance on the defendant's special skill and judgment; knowledge, or reasonable expectation of knowledge on the part of the defendant, that the claimant relied on the statement; and that it is reasonable on paper... the clauses must pass the reasonableness test. In Smith v Eric Bush [1989] (1990 AC 831), a surveyor sought to exclude liability for negligent errors in the completion of mortgage valuations. The disclaimer excludes liability to third parties who rely on their advice. it was decided that there was no contractual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant and this did not prevent any duty of care from arising. It was subject to clause s2(2) of the UCTA and was found to be unreasonable. Given that this case is so similar to that of Brad and Chardonnay, one could only assume that the same verdict would have been given in respect of Briks & Mortimer Chartered Surveyors' exclusion clause. To conclude, I would advise Brad and Chardonnay to exercise their right to damages from the surveyor as they have a strong argument, based on the relevant cases, evidence and legislation explained in this essay.