Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others [1990] 2 AC 605
Answer
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

Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others [1990] 2 AC 605
Answer
?

Tags
#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort
Question
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and others [1990] 2 AC 605
Answer
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
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

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised 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.