Use your knowledge of the law of tort to provide suitable advice for the following scenario in 400–600 words. Major Tom owned a property which was divided into two flats, and, prior to advertising the ground floor flat for sale, he instructed Wet & Dry Eradication Ltd to inspect the ground floor flat and prepare a timber preservation report, which he could show to potential purchasers. The report clearly stated that there was no evidence of dry rot at the time of inspection, but that a precautionary spray of fungicide had been made on the timbers and that these were guaranteed against dry rot infestation for 30 years. Six months after the date of the report, Major Tom sold the ground floor flat to Margaret and also the first floor flat to David. Before each sale Major Tom gave both Margaret and David a copy of the timber preservation report. It is now two years since the inspection and dry rot has appeared in both flats. Margaret and David have taken expert advice and have been told that the original report by Wet & Dry Eradication Ltd was negligent. Wet & Dry Eradication Ltd admits that the report was prepared by an unsupervised trainee and was, therefore, negligently prepared, but it denies liability on the ground that the report was addressed to Major Tom and not to Margaret or David. Advise Margaret and David whether each has a valid legal claim against Wet & Dry Eradication Ltd.