Wagenheim V. Alexander Grant & Co.: Case Study

Accountant
Responsibilities

By:
Jennifer Koppelman

March 11, 2014
Accountant Responsibility
Accountants have responsibilities to many different groups such as their clients, the government and third parties. It is important that accountants act in a particular manner and have high ethical standards, integrity and professionalism. Accountant’s job responsibility is to validate financial statements and perform the duties in accordance with all the principles, standards and laws. Even though an accountant is hired by a company, they have a responsibility to many more people than just the company. Some of the people that accountants are responsible to, would be the company 's management, investors, creditors, outside
In a case Wagenheim v. Alexander Grant & Co the court ruled that Alexander Grant improperly divulged confidential information about their client, Consolidata Data Services, to other clients. Consolidata Data Services, an audit client of Alexander Grant performed payroll services for several of Alexander Grant 's other clients. Alexander Grant discovered that Consolidata Data Services was having financial difficulty; Alexander Grant warned their other clients to stop doing business with Consolidata Data Services. Alexander Grant argued that the other clients would suffer financial damage without warning them. The ruling was against Alexander Grant, the court said that there was no proof that Consolidata Data Services was in a financial hardship that they could not recover from. Which Alexander Grant had no legal right to inform third parties of the financial burden that Consolidata Data Services was in (Cashell, 1995).
It is important that accountants keep client information confidential at all times. The accountant might not know the whole picture of a business and a company can state that they could have recovered from the financial burden but because the accountant may have told other clients that could ruin the reputation of the client and affect the
The case Gold v DCL Inc., Price Waterhouse & Co. informed DCL in December that they intended to qualify their audit report on DCL 's financial statements. DCL was in the business of leasing computers and Price Waterhouse believed that their ability to recover their computer equipment costs was impaired due to the impending release of a new line of more powerful computers by IBM. In February, DCL announced earnings without mentioning Price Waterhouse 's concern and on February 15 Price Waterhouse was replaced. The court ruled that there was no basis in principle or authority for extending an auditors duty to disclose beyond cases where the auditor is giving or has given some representation or certification and the silence and inaction of the defendants auditors did not make them culpable. The court 's reasoning that the CPA did not have to disclose was because the auditors had issued no public opinion, rendered no certification and in no way invited the public to rely on their financial judgment there was no special relationship that imposed a duty of disclosure (Cashell,