grounds to believe his statement was true. Is a term; as Chew would not invest in the bonds if not for Don’s words. Sue for negligent misrepresentation (Using “But-for” test to assess damages) Suing under the Tort of Negligence‚ Chew has to prove: Duty of Care owed to Chew by Don - Factual Foreseeability‚ proximity checked Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) - Negligent misstatement results economic loss Skill & Expertise of Don Don knows/ought to know that Chew will rely on the statement Don assumes
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
------------------------------------------------- Dear 2013 Commercial Law Students: ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- To provide you with some guidance in relation to preparing answers to legal problems‚ below are the following: ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- - A past exam question in this course‚ which was also set as an assignment in a previous year;
Premium Contract Law Tort
external auditors are concerned on overall frauds and errors occurred in the organization as a whole. | Current auditing standards require that external auditors provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement. It is the responsibility of the external auditors to report fraud and error that he sees or suspects. External auditors need to bring suspicions to management. If management is hesitant to take the proper action‚ the auditor has the right to stop
Premium Auditing Internal control Audit
Case Study Common Law Table of Contents case 1 3 Negligence 4 Donoghue v Stevenson. 4 Element of Negligence 5 Duty of Care: 5 The case of Ryan v Ireland 1989 5 Breach of the duty of care: 6 causation: 7 The Egg-shell skull rule 7 In the case of Vosburg v Putney 7 The type of the injury: 9 Contributory negligence: 9 Badger v. The minister of defence EWCH 2005 10 The limitation Period 11 Case two 11 David Walsh v. Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd [2007] IEHC 28. 12 Vicarious
Premium Tort law Tort Negligence
liability: economic analysis and the theory of tort law"‚ Canadian Business Law Journal‚ Vol. 20‚ pp. 180-214. 1992 6 7. Pacini‚ Hillison‚ Alagiah‚ Gunz “Commonwealth Convergence Toward a Narrower Scope of Auditor Liability to Third Parties for Negligent Misstatements”‚ ABACUS‚ Vol. 38‚ No. 3‚ 2002 8 11. Lansley‚ Gibson‚ Fogarty‚ “Corporate governance in Australia” International financial law review. In The IFLR guide to corporate governance(pp. 33–40). 2002 12 13. Chung‚ Farrar‚ Puri‚ Thorne‚ “Auditor
Premium Audit Financial audit Negligence
CHAPTER EIGHT MISREPRESENTATION A misrepresentation is an untrue statement‚ which induces the other party to enter into the contract. A misrepresentation may be fraudulent‚ negligent misstatement‚ or wholly innocent. The applicable remedy depends on the nature of the misrepresentation. In order for a representation to amount to an actionable misrepresentation it must be: a) false; b) one of fact as oppose to intention‚ opinion‚ or law; c) The statement must be addressed to the party who
Premium Misrepresentation
I’ll be presenting the case: L Shaddock & Associates case v Parramatta City Council. First‚ I’ll provide a brief summary of situation that resulted in the court case‚ followed by the case itself‚ which brings up issues of duty of care and negligent mis-statement‚ and concluding with the judgement that was passed. The CASE: Shaddock proposed to purchase a property for the purpose of redevelopment. A telephone inquiry made by Mr Carroll‚ Shaddock’s solicitor‚ as to whether there was any local road
Premium Law Negligence Tort
1. I. Cause in fact‚ sine qua non R. To prove the defendant negligent‚ one has to prove that the plaintiff’s injuries would not have happened if the defendant did not place their foot on the accelerator before being rear-ended. Evidence needs to be shown that if the defendant did not move his car slightly‚ his car would not have been pushed out further into oncoming traffic and thus hitting and injuring the plaintiff. A. Because Burg’s foot was off the accelerator at the time of impact‚ it
Premium Tort law Tort
negligence in reporting in a case where buyer of a properly sued the valuer because of the wrong valuation. Court stated that if third party is under protected effect then there are some general principles on professional third-party liability for negligent misstatements under contract towards third parties. In the first case (1979) The Federal Supreme Court stated that the bank knew that the information which was provided would have been showed to potential investors In the case court maintained that the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Congress United States
Question 1. Assessing the Fraud Risk Factors: High Risk factors and Low Risk Factors. High Risk Factors: 1. Management’s attitude towards overriding controls: Section 5‚ under topic Integrity and ethical values‚ of the questionnaire suggests that override could occur without management’s approval‚ manager’s override is not explicitly prohibited and no interventions by the management were observed. 2. The Degree of oversight related to the company’s control structure exercised by the management:
Premium Balance sheet Financial statements Generally Accepted Accounting Principles