"If, in the ordinary course of business or professional affairs, a person seeks information or advice from another, who is not under contractual or fiduciary obligation to give the information or advice, in circumstances in which a reasonable man so asked would know that he was being trusted, or that his skill or judgment was being relied on, and the person asked chooses to give the information or advice without clearly so qualifying his answer as to show that he does not accept responsibility, then the person replying accepts a legal duty to exercise such care as the circumstances require in making his reply; and for a failure
--- סוף עמוד 164 ---
to exercise that care an action for negligence will lie if damage results".
כן נקבע בהחלטת בית הלורדים בעניין Smith v Eric S Bush [1990] 1 AC 831 , [1989] 2 All ER 514:
"[…] in what circumstances should a duty of care be owed by the adviser to those who act upon his advice? I would answer – only if it is foreseeable that if the advice is negligent the recipient is likely to suffer damage, that there is a sufficiently proximate relationship between the parties and that it is just and reasonable to impose the liability."
עם זאת, הטלת חבות כאמור לא תיעשה בנקל, ובהתקיים נסיבות מיוחדות. כך למשל במקרה נוסף מהמשפט האנגלי [,Killick v PricewaterhouseCoopers (a firm) [2001] 1 BCLC 65] קבע בית המשפט הגבוה לצדק באנגליה חובת זהירות של חברת pwc כלפי מנהלי העיזבון של בעל מניות בחברה, בשל הערכת שווי שערכה חברת pwc למניות אלו בהזמנת החברה לצורך מכירתן. זאת, לאחר מכירת רובן של המניות במחיר בו נקבה pwc, מנהלי העיזבון ביקשו חוות דעת נוספת שהעריכה את המניות בשווי גבוה יותר. בנימוקיו ציין בית המשפט שם כדלהלן:
"In this case the claimant can rely on the following. First, the defendant was appointed for the purpose of valuing shares for a specific purpose, namely enabling others to require the claimants to sell 16 million shares at the valuation. Secondly, the defendant knew that was the purpose, indeed the sole purpose, of its appointment, it knew of the number of shares involved and it knew of the consequences. Thirdly, there was no possibility of the claimants challenging the effectiveness of the valuations save on grounds of fraud. Fourthly, the claimants could not protect themselves against a negligent valuation, for instance by insurance, but the defendant of course could do so. Fifthly, this is not a case where a finding of liability would involve 'an indeterminate risk to an indeterminate number of people for an indeterminate period'. Sixthly, the defendant could have refused appointment or could have insisted on a larger fee to effect more comprehensive insurance, or a fuller indemnity or