AFM231 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Anxiety Disorder, Reasonable Person, Bailment

68 views2 pages

raspberryelephant299

20 Mar 2016

School

University of Waterloo

Department

Accounting & Financial Management

Course

AFM231

Professor

Darren Charters

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

You owe a duty of care to people using your products and services. Causation would the harm have occurred but for the defendants conduct. In negligence just because you have not met the standard of care you also have to prove that a fail you did is what caused harm to someone. Negligence test: a duty of care is owed. Reasonable person: breach of standard of care caused harm. This is the final part of the test. If you failed causation you most likely called the harm: remoteness is a more recent term and its not used as often and can been seen as a safety for the test of negligence. In addition to proving as the plaintiff that the defendants failure caused the harm, also have to prove that all the damages you saw is foreseeable if the defendant failed to to what they said they would do.

Related Questions

4â28. Multiple Choice Questions
Select the best answer for each of the following questions and explain the reasons for your
choice.
a. If a CPA performs an audit recklessly, the CPA will be liable to third parties who were
unknown and not foreseeable to the CPA for:
(1) Strict liability for all damages incurred.
(2) Gross negligence.

(3) Either ordinary or gross negligence.
(4) Breach of contract.
b. Which of the following approaches to auditorsâ liability is least desirable from the CPAâs
perspective?
(1) The Ultramares approach.
(2) The Rosenblum approach.
(3) The Restatement of Torts approach.
(4) The Foreseen User approach.
c. In cases of breach of contract, plaintiffs generally have to prove all of the following,
except:
(1) The CPAs had a duty.
(2) The CPAs made a false statement.
(3) The client incurred losses related to the CPAsâ performance.
(4) The CPAs breached their duty.
d. If the CPAs provided negligent tax advice to a public company, the client would bring suit
under:
(1) The Securities Act of 1933.
(2) The Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
(3) The federal income tax law.
(4) Common law.
e. Which of the following cases reaffi rmed the principles in the Ultramares case?
(1) Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
(2) Rosenblum v. Adler.
(3) Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder.
(4) Escott v. BarChris Construction Corporation.
f. Under common law, the CPAs who were negligent may mitigate some damages to a client
by proving:
(1) Contributory negligence.
(2) The CPAsâ fee was not material.
(3) The CPAs were not competent to accept the engagement.
(4) The CPAsâ negligence was caused by the fact that they had too much work.
g. Under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, auditors and other defendants are faced
with:
(1) Joint liability.
(2) Joint and several liability.
(3) Proportionate liability.
(4) Limited liability.
h. A CPA issued an unqualifi ed opinion on the fi nancial statements of a company that
sold common stock in a public offering subject to the Securities Act of 1933. Based on
a misstatement in the fi nancial statements, the CPA is being sued by an investor who
purchased shares of this public offering. Which of the following represents a viable
defense?
(1) The investor has not proved fraud or negligence by the CPA.
(2) The investor did not actually rely upon the false statement.
(3) The CPA detected the false statement after the audit date.
(4) The false statement is immaterial in the overall context of the fi nancial statements.
i. Which of the following elements is most frequently necessary to hold a CPA liable to a
client?
(1) Acted with scienter or guilty knowledge.
(2) Was not independent of the client.
(3) Failed to exercise due care.
(4) Did not use an engagement letter.

j. Which statement best expresses the factors that purchasers of securities registered under
the Securities Act of 1933 need to prove to recover losses from the auditors?
(1) The purchasers of securities must prove ordinary negligence by the auditors and reliance
on the audited fi nancial statements.
(2) The purchasers of securities must prove that the fi nancial statements were misleading
and that they relied on them to purchase the securities.
(3) The purchasers of securities must prove that the fi nancial statements were misleading;
then, the burden of proof is shifted to the auditors to show that the audit was
performed with âdue diligence.â
(4) The purchasers of securities must prove that the fi nancial statements were misleading
and the auditors were negligent.
k. The most signifi cant result of the Continental Vending case was that it:
(1) Created a more general awareness of the possibility of auditor criminal prosecution.
(2) Extended the auditorâs responsibility to all information included in registration
statements.
(3) Defi ned the CPAâs responsibilities for unaudited fi nancial statements.
(4) Established a precedent for auditors being held liable to third parties under common
law for ordinary negligence.
l. The 1136 Tenantsâ case was important because of its emphasis upon the legal liability of
the CPA when associated with:
(1) A review of annual statements.
(2) Unaudited fi nancial statements.
(3) An audit resulting in a disclaimer of opinion.
(4) Letters for underwriters.

pucebuffalo725

AFM231 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Anxiety Disorder, Reasonable Person, Bailment

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

AFM231 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Ginger Beer, Industrial Revolution, Reasonable Person

AFM231 Chapter Notes - Chapter 11: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Livent, Contributory Negligence

AFM231 Chapter Notes - Chapter 10 - 11: Contributory Negligence, Strict Liability, Vicarious Liability

Related Questions