Thanks a lot, Rob for introducing, and everyone for the comments so far.

My initial response, Bill, is that scope of the duty discussions have,
in most jurisdictions, including this one, been easiest so far for
statutory duties. One of the earlier cases was Gorris v Scott [1974] LR
9 Exch 125, the sheepy ship case. Statutes can give clearer signals of
what the purpose of the duty is, and the duties tend to be narrower and
more fully articulated. The shift to more generalised duties to take
care particularly as civil juries declined, and thus gradating duties to
control juries was less needed, might have impinged, slightly, the
"scope of the duty" route.

On 18/06/2021 11:31, William Swadling wrote:
>
> I’m no contract/tort lawyer, but would I be right in thinking that
> talk of the scope of duty only makes sense in the context of assumed
> obligations, which /Spartan Steel/ certainly was not?
>
> Bill
>
> *From:*Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* 18 June 2021 11:28
> *To:* Andrew Tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk>; obligations@uwo.ca
> *Subject:* Re: SAAMCo safe
>
> Some of the looser things they say about issues that are not before
> them are probably best ignored.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Andrew Tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk
> <mailto:a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk>>
> *Sent:* 18 June 2021 11:26
> *To:* Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk
> <mailto:robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>>; obligations@uwo.ca
> <mailto:obligations@uwo.ca> <obligations@uwo.ca
> <mailto:obligations@uwo.ca>>
> *Subject:* Re: SAAMCo safe
>
> Not so sure if the majority in the MBS case at [8] are right to
> suggest that Spartan Steel is a scope of duty case. If loss of profits
> is outside the scope of the duty to take care not to damage my
> property, how come I can claim it if I suffer it as well as, and in
> consequence of, physical damage? Or am I being simply dense? -Andrew
>
> On 18/06/2021 11:17, Robert Stevens wrote:
>
> A couple of cases heard together on the SAAMCo principle. Both
> right I think, with strong majority judgments by Hodge and Sales,
> with Reed, Black and Kitchin signing up. Leggatt and Burrows give
> separate concurring judgments with different reasoning.
>
> The cases were pretty straightforward, IMO, if you'd just read
> Hoffmann.
>
> Manchester BS v Meadows.
>
> Building Society seeks accounting advice from an accountant, who
> tell them that the wheeze of "hedging accounting" is the way to
> go. As a result of the advice the Society engages in some gambling
> on interest rate movements via swaps contracts. The exciting
> accounting procedure hid how badly losing the swaps were. The
> regulator informs the BS that it can't use this exciting new
> accounting method to avoid regulatory capital requirements. To
> extricate itself from its arrangements, the BS ends up closing out
> the swaps for £32m.
>
>
>
>
>
> The easier one is Khan v Meadows.
>
> Woman seeks advice on whether she carries the haemophilia gene.
> Doctor negligently advises that she does not. Child is born who,
> if the advice had not been given, would not have been, who has
> both haemophilia and autism. Is the doctor liable for the costs of
> the autism (it is accepted that they're liable for the costs of
> haemophilia)?
>
> The majority ask: what is the purpose of the duty?
>
> In Manchester BS [34] the purpose of the advice was to enable the
> Building Society to adopt its exciting new business model. The BS
> failed to understand that they couldn't adopt this because of the
> auditor's advice. So, when the regulators told them to draw their
> necks in, the loss was within the purpose of the duty.
>
> Khan is really straightforward. Was the purpose of the duty
> assumed by the doctor (to advise about the haemophilia gene) there
> to protect against the costs of autism? No [68]
>
> Lord Burrows (who cites many academics on this list) would have
> placed more emphasis on policy matters. Lord Leggatt would have
> placed more emphasis on the language of causation. The majority
> don't agree with them.
>
> The majority's approach seems to me to be clearly correct, but
> they add in an unfortunate six stage "test" for liability in
> negligence. You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson
> with so many previous "tests" having gone down in flames after
> launch, but apparently not.
>
> The reason there was a seven member panel was because it had been
> originally thought that SAAMCo was going to be challenged (one of
> the panel writes a textbook very critical of the rule introduced
> by Lord Hoffmann). This didn't happen, probably because the
> prospects for it being overturned at this point is zero. Good.
>
> As a stylistic matter, I think it would be better if judges
> returned to just answering the question the facts before them
> pose. We have now had many cases and judgments attempting to give
> the "definitive" formulation of the SAAMCo principle (which is in
> fact relatively straightforward, as the majority make clear).
>
> A welcome break from the grind of marking. (And the horror of
> being chair of examiners. Never see how the sausages are made).
>
> Rob
>
> --
> br>
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Andrew Tettenborn*
> /Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University/
>
> Institute for International Shipping and Trade Law
> School of Law, University of Swansea
> Richard Price Building
> Singleton Park
> SWANSEA SA2 8PP
> Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724
> Cellphone 07472-708527 / (int) +44-7472-708527
> Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855
>
>
>
> *Andrew Tettenborn*
> /Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe/
>
> Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol
> Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe
> Adeilad Richard Price
> Parc Singleton
> ABERTAWE SA2 8PP
> Ffôn 01792-602724 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-602724
> Ffôn symudol 07472-708527 / (rhyngwladol) +44-7472-708527
> Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855
>
>
> ISTL <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> See us on Twitter:@swansea_dst <https://twitter.com/swansea_dst>
> Read the IISTL Blog: iistl.wordpress.com <https://iistl.wordpress.com/>
> My publications can be found here
> <https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8025-5630> and here
> <https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/author/andrewtetterborn/> and
> here
> <http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/search_results/e33f8465aa58ebce86f46f4faed6a554/>
> Member of the Heterodox Academy <https://heterodoxacademy.org/> and
> member and adviser of the Free Speech Union <https://freespeechunion.org>
>
> /Disclaimer: This email (including any attachments) is for the use of
> the intended recipient only and may contain confidential information
> and/or copyright material. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and all
> copies from your system. Any unauthorized use, disclosure,
> reproduction, copying, distribution, or other form of unauthorized
> dissemination of the contents is expressly prohibited./
>
>
>
>
>
--
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford
matthew.dyson@law.ox.ac.uk