Facts: The key question in this case was whether the defendants (auditors) owed a duty of care to potential investors (plaintiffs), who made a successful takeover bid for a company, based on the erroneous accounts of the auditors. The issue was whether the auditors owed a duty of care to shareholders or potential investors, to carry out an audit using reasonable care and skill. The Court of Appeal held that the auditors owed a duty of care to shareholders to prepare the audit with reasonable care and skill, but not to potential investors. The auditors appealed to the House of Lords against the decision that they owed a duty of care to shareholders. The respondents also appealed (a cross-appeal) to the House of Lords against the decision that no duty was owed to them as potential investors. The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed
Answer
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others [1990] 2 AC 605
Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
Facts: The key question in this case was whether the defendants (auditors) owed a duty of care to potential investors (plaintiffs), who made a successful takeover bid for a company, based on the erroneous accounts of the auditors. The issue was whether the auditors owed a duty of care to shareholders or potential investors, to carry out an audit using reasonable care and skill. The Court of Appeal held that the auditors owed a duty of care to shareholders to prepare the audit with reasonable care and skill, but not to potential investors. The auditors appealed to the House of Lords against the decision that they owed a duty of care to shareholders. The respondents also appealed (a cross-appeal) to the House of Lords against the decision that no duty was owed to them as potential investors. The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed
Answer
?
Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
Facts: The key question in this case was whether the defendants (auditors) owed a duty of care to potential investors (plaintiffs), who made a successful takeover bid for a company, based on the erroneous accounts of the auditors. The issue was whether the auditors owed a duty of care to shareholders or potential investors, to carry out an audit using reasonable care and skill. The Court of Appeal held that the auditors owed a duty of care to shareholders to prepare the audit with reasonable care and skill, but not to potential investors. The auditors appealed to the House of Lords against the decision that they owed a duty of care to shareholders. The respondents also appealed (a cross-appeal) to the House of Lords against the decision that no duty was owed to them as potential investors. The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed
Answer
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others [1990] 2 AC 605
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others [1990] 2 AC 605
Facts: The key question in this case was whether the defendants (auditors) owed a duty of care to potential investors (plaintiffs), who made a successful takeover bid for a company, base
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.