A long-established manufacturing company, XYZ Ltd., contemplating the possibility of a sale of some of its properties, retained an environmental consulting firm, E Inc., to prepare an environmental compliance audit.The Vice-President of E Inc., a professional engineer, responsible for the performance of the environmental compliance audit turned the matter over to one of E Inc.’s employees who had only recently become licensed as a professional engineer. However, on the basis of previous assignments, the Vice-President had been very impressed by the young engineer’s abilities. The Vice-President was also aware that an extremely busy schedule would likely limit the amount of time he himself could spend on the environmental compliance audit and, accordingly, selected the younger employee engineer in the hope that the young engineer’s involvement would decrease the Vice-President’s supervisory time in connection with the audit.The employee engineer carried out an environmental compliance audit with respect to each of the properties identified and E Inc. submitted its reports on each property. Included at the beginning of each report was the following qualifying statement:“This report was prepared by E Inc. for the account of XYZ Ltd. The material in it reflects E Inc.’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use that a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. E Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.”Sometime later, XYZ Ltd. sold two of its properties to Acquisitions Inc. In negotiating the sale with Acquisitions Inc., E Inc.’s reports were shown to Acquisitions Inc., but Acquisitions Inc. had no dealings with E Inc. E Inc. had no knowledge of the sale to Acquisitions Inc. until approximately four years later when Acquisitions Inc. commenced a lawsuit against E Inc. Acquisitions Inc. claimed it had commenced the lawsuit in tort against E Inc. because it had encountered hazardous substances on one of the properties and had subsequently obtained the opinion of another environmental consulting firm who confirmed that the report in question by E Inc. contained negligent misstatements which, in the opinion of the second consulting firm, had resulted from E Inc.’s representatives having spent too little time investigating the property for hazardous substances. Acquisitions Inc. claimed in its lawsuit that E Inc. was aware that the report might be shown to prospective purchasers and, accordingly, E Inc. should be responsible for damages arising as a result of reliance by Acquisitions Inc. on the negligent misstatements in E Inc.’s report.What potential liabilities in tort law arise in this case? In your answer, explain what principles of tort law are relevant and how each applies to the case. Indicate a likely outcome to the matter. In your answer indicate if your conclusion would differ if the reports by E Inc. had not contained the qualifying statement identified above and if your conclusion would differ, explain why.