I help out quite a bit, this is making me think again.
The country is slowly going to hell in a hand cart thanks to the judiciary interpretation of the rules. Surely no law was ever meant to make this happen?
if you read down it would seem that it wasn't for free at all, as she got in some Polish workers to do the work.
I feel sorry for the woman but perhaps the couple have a point, if you pay for something and don't like it surely you can ask for compensation.
It's in the Daily Wail so it is hardly going to be accurate!
If you read it the woman was paid to do it but charged 'Mates rates'.
She was in charge of the subcontractor she found and was correctly expected to act in a professional manner which she did not do!
Yet another Daily Wail non story!
The judge said:
“In view of their former friendship and the fact that the services were said to have been gratuitous, the case serves as something of a cautionary tale,”
if you told a friend you were a plumber and you'd fix their leaking pipe for free, and then went ahead and flooded the house ... yes, I think they'd be within their rights to sue you.
I'm assuming none of this was covered by insurance.
Well.....it may be breaking new ground to apply duty of care to an architect, but when I was in practice as an Occupational Therapist, I was definitely aware that my duty of care covered anything I did professionally regardless of whether it was for recompense or not...and I know that at time, my nurse colleagues were similarly bound.