JSB171 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Shire Of Caboolture, No Liability, Legal Risk

75 views6 pages

raspberrywallaby86

20 Jan 2017

School

Department

Course

Professor

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

Document Summary

Plaintiffs must prove on the balance of probabilities: Defendants must prove on the balance of probabilities: Consider common law and civil liability act for: Failure to take reasonable care of own safety. Fault + contributed to foreseeable injury = contributory negligence: plaintiff at fault. The court will look at the circumstances to determine whether the plaintiff has fallen below the standard of care. The standard of care is determined by the courts and is based on what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances to protect their own safety. Vairy v wyong shire council (2005) 223 clr 422. Refer to civil liability act 2003 (qld) s 23. See s 9(2) for calculus of negligence: contributed to the foreseeable injury/loss suffered by plaintiff. Fitzgerald v penn (1954) 91 clr 268. March v stramare (1991) 171 clr 506. Kirk v nominal defendant [1984] 1 qdr 592. Failure to wear a safety belt may amount to contributory negligence.

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

JSB171 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Shire Of Caboolture, No Liability, Legal Risk

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

JSB171 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Susan Crennan, National Coal Board, Susan Kiefel

JSB171 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Gett, Nervous Shock In English Law, Intracranial Pressure

JSB171 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Reasonable Person, Waverley Municipal Council, All England Law Reports

Related Questions