Law of tort dominates civil conduct in all aspects of life and numerous of violations of duties are all distinctly set. It provides remedies for certain civil wrongs that have not been arisen from the contractual duties. Under tort law, whether it is an intentional act or accident, the injured victim (plaintiff) may be capable to recover damages from the person that liable for the harmed caused (defendant). Negligence is the most significant and developed category of tort in terms of money and varied of cases involved. It believes that the plaintiff should bear their own adversities unless there is a proof shows that the defendant owes of duty to comply with ordinary care and skill. There are few elements have to be shown if the claimant wish to succeed in compensation which is the existence and breach of a duty of care, losses or damages must be resulted from the reliance on that breach, and lastly is to determine whether the losses were an equitably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions.
Negligent misstatement refers to a representation of fact that been carelessly made, which is relied on the plaintiff to their advantages (O’Riordan, 2007, p.1). In 1964, the tort of negligent misstatement has been established and it has gained more recognition in this decades. It covers opinions and reality statements made by negligence. However, the tort had lead to certain level of floodgate concerns in the early century and today the courts are still less well embrace its liability. In the present day setup, accountants have been regarded as prominence role. They inspect mistreats and irregularities of the company’s financial aspects and protect the benefits of the stakeholders and investors. When the accountants or auditors form a contractual relationship with their potential clients, there are many debatable legal area emerge in respect of the people who possible rely on the company reports made or advices provided in a non contractual capacity. In fact, most of the plaintiffs are unfamiliar to the accountants in the situation. Even though the negligent law enables the parties with no contractual relation to accuse for damages constantly after the negligent behavior caused, the succeed of the accounting firm still need to depend on the objective of the reports made, accounts created, and the establishment of a duty of care between the accountant and the claimant who making compensation in negligence. The appropriate law may be obtained from numerous of significant cases. During the early 1980s, there were trends of the judicial extension of the amount of third parties to whom an auditor or accountant may be held liable and this period was referred as the “dark ages” of accountant’s liability. There is a duty of care if it is to plaintiff. In JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom & Co 1983, the plaintiff took over the private company after reading an unqualified report prepared by the accountants Mark Bloom. The accountants knew the plaintiff was facing financial crisis and searching for financial help on the preparation of statements. Soon JEB discovered that the financial statements included some errors and the value of stock was overstated. Thus, he took an action in negligence against the accountants and Anns foreseeability test was applied in this case. The action failed on the grounds of causation and the accountants did not take the liability for their negligence and the statements were not of the main cause of making loss profit because it was revealed that acquisition of the company was to obtain the expertise of the directors without the concern of the current stock’s value. However, Queen's Bench Division held that the suitable test for developing a duty of care is whether the accountants aware or should have known rational that an individual probably made a keys decision depend on the audited financial reports and duty of care was owed. Under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.2...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document