(dissenting). I cannot agree with the majority’s disposition of this case.
We do not write on a clean slate. In Beckovsky v Burton Abstract & Title Co, 208 Mich 224, 227 (1919), the Michigan Supreme Court indicated its acceptance of the universal rule that an abstractor of title is liable only to persons with whom he contracts.1 There does not appear to be any contrary authority. See Anno: Liability of One Preparing Abstract of Title, for Deficiencies Therein, to One Other Than Person Directly Contracting for Abstract, 34 ALR3d 1122; 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, § 7.6, p 548; Prosser, Law of Torts, § 102, pp 721-723.
The Restatement does not state a contrary rule. In a note to the American Law Institute accompanying Tentative Draft No 12 of the Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, §552,2 p 15, the then reporter, Dean Prosser, stated:
*104"Where the defendant merely supplies information for the recipient to use as he sees fit, without any purpose of his own to reach .third persons, a narrower rule is required. It is not enough that it is 'foreseeable’ that the information will reach third persons. In one sense it is always 'foreseeable’ that any information will be communicated to others. Something more is required. This is made very clear by a long list of cases holding that one who negligently gives a certificate, or other information, to A is not liable when it reaches B and causes pecuniary loss to him, in the absence of some information as to A’s intent to reach B.”
A large number of cases are cited by Dean Prosser in support, including cases concerning the liability of abstractors of title.3
*105"The announcement in opposition to a large generally accepted body of precedent of new rules of law, without precedent (other than analogies) in any common-law jurisdiction * * * must be left to final courts of review.” Hollerud v Malamis, 20 Mich App 748, 758-759 (1969).
I agree that the statute of limitations could not have run against the plaintiffs’ action against defendant Polgar since the deed of conveyance Mr. aind Mrs. Polgar agreed to deliver to the plaintiffs upon performance of their obligations as the purchasers under the land contract had not yet been executed.
I do not reach the other questions raised by defendant Polgar since the majority does not advert to them.
In the cited case the plaintiff vendee asked the defendant abstractor to certify the abstract and to bill the vendor. The abstractor was held to be subject to liability to .the vendee. Cases decided in other jurisdictions also recognize that an abstractor can be liable to a third person if he knows of the third person’s interest when he contracts. See 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, § 7.6, p 548; Prosser, Law of Torts, § 102, p 722; Anno: Liability of One Preparing Abstract of Title, for Deficiencies Therein, to One Other Than Person Directly Contracting for Abstract, 34 ALR3d 1122,1134.
Section 552, as stated in the first Restatement, p 122, reads:
"One who in the course of his business or profession supplies information for the guidance of others in their business transactions is subject to liability for harm caused to them by their reliance upon the information if
"(a) he fails to exercise that care and competence in obtaining and communicating the information which its recipient is justified in expecting, and
"(b) the harm is suffered
"(i) by the person or one of the class of persons for whose guidance the information was supplied, and
"(ii) because of his justifiable reliance upon it in a transaction in which it was intended to influence his conduct or in a transaction substantially identical therewith.”
It is proposed to revise § 552 to read as follows:
"(1) One who, in the course of his business, profession or employ*104ment, or in a transaction in which he has a pecuniary interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information.
"(2) Except as stated in subsection (3), the liability stated in subsection (1) is limited to loss suffered
"(a) by the person or one of the persons for whose benefit and guidance he intends to supply the information, or knows that the recipient intends to supply it; and
"(b) through reliance upon it in a transaction which he intends the information to influence, or knows that the recipient so intends, or in a substantially similar transaction.
"(3) The liability of one who is under a public duty to give the information extends to loss suffered by any of the class of persons for whose benefit the duty is created, in any of the transactions in which it is intended to protect them.”
Illustration 8 reads:
"8. A, a title insurance company, negligently prepares an abstract of the title to B’s land, which shows that B has good title, although his title is in fact defective. A knows that B intends to exhibit the abstract to C Bank, as a basis for applying for a loan secured by a mortgage on the land. In reliance upon the abstract, C Bank buys the land from B for use as a parking lot, and as a result suffers pecuniary loss. A is not liable to C Bank.” Restatement of the Law Second, Torts, Tentative Draft No 12, § 552, pp 14, 27.
Among the cases cited by Dean Prosser holding that abstractors are not liable are Savings Bank v Ward, 100 US 195; 25 L Ed 621 (1879); Phoenix Title & Trust Co v Continental Oil Co, 43 Ariz 219; 29 P2d 1065 (1934); Peterson v Gales, 191 Wis 137; 210 NW 407 (1926); *105Sickler v Indian River Abstract & Guaranty Co, 142 Fla 528; 195 So 195 (1940).