As a demand driven discipline‚ audit has contributed to the advancement of civilization”. State your position with appropriate argument highlighting the functional‚ legal and social construct of the profession. 15 Introduction Auditors are responsible to provide an independent opinion on the true and fair view of the financial statements after he has acquainted himself with all the relevant and reliable evidences with the client. Auditor is expected to a professional adroit with sufficient proficiencies
Premium Audit Auditor's report
impaired by coercion‚ fraud‚ undue influence‚ misrepresentation and mistake. Without free consent‚ the contract can be voidable or void‚ depending on the circumstances. English | BM/Mandarin | Example | Effect on contract | Coercion | | | | Fraud | | | | Undue influence | | | | Misrepresentation | | | | Mistake | | | | 3. Difference between fraud and misrepresentation: Fraud (Section 17 of Contracts Act) | Misrepresentation (Section 18 of Contracts Act) | Fraud involves
Premium Contract Contract law Fraud
CERTAINTY OF CONTRACT There are two aspects to the issue of uncertainty. (1) The language used may be too vogue in which case‚ the court is likely to hold that there is no concluded agreement ‚ the contract is void for uncertainty. (2) Failure to reach agreement on a vital or fundamental term of an agreement. SECTION 30 1. Agreements‚ the meaning of which is not uncertain‚ or capable of being made certain‚ are void. * If A agrees to sell to B ‘a hundred tons of oil’ ‚ there
Premium Contract Contract law
Questions 1-4 1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra‚ 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra‚ 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but
Premium Employment
LEGT 1710 BUSINESS LAW – ASSIGNMENT 2 1 Introduction Vincent is demanding compensation from Claude for the damages incurred from the paints provided. Claude‚ however‚ refuses this claim by arguing that he is protected by an exclusion clause – the words on the receipt and sign. Given that negligence was apparent and that the exclusion clause did not fall foul of any statutory regulations; whether Vincent will be successful in his claim‚ ultimately lies in the question was Vincent bound by
Premium Contract Contractual term Sale of Goods Act 1979
law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable person is never negligent‚ thus the degree of care required is that of a reasonable person(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The creation of tort of negligence is a very important tool by which gaps in the law is filled. Often‚ actions require that some wrongful intent be
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
Community College of Baltimore County v. Patient First‚ Md. 568 (2014) Crockett v Crother‚ 264 Md. 222‚ 224 (1972) Graham‚ J. A. (2014‚ September). Maryland Court of Special Appeals Affirms Lower Court’s Finding that Indemnification Provision Applied to Negligent Venipuncture of Phlebotomy Student. Retrieved from http://www.martindale.com/appellate-practice-law King‚ D. B. & Ritterskamp‚ J. J. (1998). Purchasing Manager’s Desk Book of Purchasing Law. New York‚ NY: Aspen Publishers. Kreter v. Healthstar‚
Premium Contract Tort Breach of contract
Slovenski) were negligent with respect to their coaching techniques and the equipment they furnished to Garret Moose at the time he was injured. (2) Whether or not the harm was foreseeable. (3) Whether or not MIT was liable for the injured athlete. Rule: The jury found that each defendant‚ as well as the plaintiff‚ was negligent and that the defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Analysis: Both the plaintiff and the defendant are negligent in this case‚
Premium Tort Tort law Law
have a cause of action in negligence against SCL’. Using common law‚ the claimant is owed duty of care‚ but we also need to consider if the duty was breached will depend if the roof tiles was due to the defendant’s negligence. If SCL were found negligent Emma would be able to make a claim against them. To identify whether Emma is really owed
Premium Tort Law Tort law
capacity. Free consent that we talk is about misrepresentation whereas capacity is about her being a minor. “Free consent is one of the essential elements of a valid contract which provides that all agreements are contract if they are made by the free consent of the parties….” (Tulsian‚ 1998‚ p.53) “Capacity is legal power to enter into binding obligations or to enjoy the privileges of a legal status.”(Sinha & Dheeraj‚ 1996‚ p. 30) “…misrepresentation is a falsely made statement of material fact
Premium Contract Contract law