Facts
In the South Australia case, a valuer had (in breach of an implied term to exercise reasonable care and skill) negligently advised his client bank that property which it proposed to take as security for a loan was worth much more than its actual market value. The question was whether he should be liable not only for losses attributable to the deficient security but also for further losses attributable to a fall in the property market. The House decided that he should not be liable for this kind of loss.Judgment
TheSignificance
The effect of the ''SAAMCO'' case was to exclude from liability the damages attributable to a fall in the property market notwithstanding that those losses were foreseeable in the sense of being “not unlikely” (property values go down as well as up) and had been caused by the negligent valuation in the sense that, but for the valuation, the bank would not have lent at all and there was no evidence to show that it would have lost its money in some other way. It was excluded on the ground that it was outside the scope of the liability which the parties would reasonably have considered that the valuer was undertaking. Subsequent case law has drawn a distinction between cases merely providing information, and those providing advice. The principle in ''SAAMCO'' cannot be invoked in cases where investment advisers specifically direct an investor to make a specific investment (see '' Rubenstein v HSBC Bank plc'' and '' Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd (in liquidation) v Johnson & Higgins Ltd''), though it may be rather difficult to carefully demarcate where information ends and directed investment advice begins.See also
* English contract law *'' Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc'' 008UKHL 48References
External links
*Lindsay MacDonald and Catherine May,