Legal Reasoning is a reasonable reasoning before the decision had been made. Legal reasoning required us to consider the criteria beyond those imposed by the strict necessity of logic. It has followed certain criteria or rules which applied in practical reasoning. For an example‚ a judge has to give judgment by following the precedent case and Federal Constitution‚ legislators have to predict the impact of their laws before amendment whereby following the two-third majority of Parliament and lawyers
Premium Logic Reasoning
involved in evaluating the net realizable value of inventory. RESPONSIBILITY OF AUDITOR 1. Measure and record transaction data 2. Assess the risk of material misstatement in management’s financial statements 3. Classify and summarize recorded data 4. Obtain and evaluate evidence to respond to risks of material misstatement in the financial statements 5. Evaluate reasonableness of accounting estimates 6. Obtain reasonable assurance that financial statements are presented fairly in
Premium Auditing Audit Internal audit
The primary legal issue was the claim of negligent misinterpretation and the secondary issue was the third party breach of contract. The Bank claimed that it suffered losses as a third-party beneficiary of the engagement contract to conduct the audit between Brandon and GKCO. The Bank also claimed that GKCO committed the tort of negligent misrepresentation. According to the definition‚ when the parties enter into a contact‚ they can agree
Premium Civil procedure Finance Plaintiff
conduct in certain relationships . Therefore‚ in a world were genome-testing facilities are available to the public are becoming increasingly more common‚ it would be unjust for them not to be held to a degree of responsibility for providing negligent misstatements. For these genome testing facilities to suggest that they can detect whether you are carrying any genetic variations related to disease‚ potentially affecting every aspect of their life‚ to suggest that there is no degree of presumed responsibility
Premium Free will Determinism Causality
LGST101: Business Law AY 2011-2012‚ Term 1 Group 8 Project Written Analysis Tort of Negligence Prepared for: Professor Melvyn Chew Written By: Jamie Lim Jia Qi (#12) Joel Koh Yong Kiat (#14) Low Hwan Hong (#23) Oh Zhan Yuan (#24) Ong Hui Ming Maria Nicolette (#25) G12 Throughout the course of this report‚ to determine if the plaintiff is owed a duty of care in negligence‚ we will adhere by the Singapore single test of negligence laid out in the case of Spandeck Engineering
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
In tort law‚ a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn‚ breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of
Premium Duty of care Tort Negligence
proximate. In most situations‚ this will not present a difficulty‚ as the alleged duty of care will be within an existing category‚ or analogous to an existing category. The court offered some examples of such categories: physical injury; negligent misstatement; misfeasance in public office; a duty to warn of a danger once recognised; building negligence; and some types of relational economic loss. However‚ where a novel claim is involved‚ the Court accepted that it is pointless searching for
Premium Law Tort Negligence
2105AFE – INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW – Semester 1 2013 LECTURE PLAN Students should complete the readings each week prior to the lecture. Reading references are to the customised text (Gibson‚ A.‚ & Fraser‚ D.‚ Introduction to Business Law Custom Book 5/E (2012) - (ISBN: 9781486010875). | | |Readings | |Week |Topic
Premium Tort Law Common law
Question : (TCO 4) To succeed in an action against the auditor‚ the client must be able to show that: Student Answer: the auditor was fraudulent. the auditor was grossly negligent. there was a written contract. there is a close causal connection between the auditor’s behavior and the damages suffered by the client. Instructor Explanation: Page 121 Points Received: 2 of 2 Comments: 2. Question : (TCO 4) The principal issue to be resolved in cases involving
Premium Financial audit Annual report Auditing
the loss suffered by the claimant was reasonably foreseeable. In the case of Hedly Byrne and Co vs Hedler and Partners Ltd‚ where there was a special relationship between parties‚ there could be a duty of care for financial loss caused by a negligent misstatement. However‚ there was a valid disclaimer as the advice given by Heller was headed without responsibility and the defendant was not liable. In this case‚ Aiman & Co were not liable since there is no special relationship between parties and the
Premium Audit Auditing External auditor