BUS-294 Lecture Notes - Lecture 14: Contributory Negligence, Partial Defence, Nervous Shock In English Law

9 views2 pages

coppermule660

20 Jun 2020

School

Diablo Valley College

Department

Business Accounting/Management/Marketing/Real Estate

Course

BUS-294

Professor

Miller

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

Document Summary

Once you have shown causation in fact you must show causation in law. You need to show the damage is not too remote, it is the kind of harm we can call the defendant responsible for as a result of the defendants negligence. Re polemis (1921) - a defendant is liable for all direct consequences of their actions. The wagon mound (1961) an oil spill on water in a dockyard ignited and caused damage to a number of boats. The chain of events was rather direct lending to the damages. However the court said a direct consequence was not enough stating that the event would have to be foreseeable. The oil damaging boats was foreseeable however the fire was not foreseeable and was a freak accident. So the defendant was not held liable for the damage. There are three stages to the tort of negligence. The onus of proof for the tort of negligence lies upon the claimant.

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

BUS-294 Lecture Notes - Lecture 14: Contributory Negligence, Partial Defence, Nervous Shock In English Law

Document Summary

Get access

Related textbook solutions

Introductory Statistics

Related Documents

BUS-294 Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: The Employer

BUS-294 Lecture Notes - Lecture 19: Mothercare, Consumer Protection Act 1987

BUS-294 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Misrepresentation, House Of Lords

Related Questions