The two cases that formed the basis for most subsequent decisions as to the determination of auditor
Question:
The two cases that formed the basis for most subsequent decisions as to the determination of auditor negligence were:
AWA and HIH. | ||
Caparo Industries and Esanda. | ||
Pacific Acceptance and London and General Bank. | ||
Kingston Cotton Mill and London and General Bank. |
Match the case with the ruling, and choose the correct matching:
Cases: Rulings:
Caparo Industries Pty Ltd v. Dickman | A. An auditor is a watchdog, but not a bloodhound |
Kingston Cotton Mill Co. | B. Contributory negligence |
AWA Ltd v. Daniels | C. An auditor’s duty of care is owed to shareholders as a group, not to individual shareholders |
A, B, C | ||
B, C, A | ||
C, A, B | ||
A, C, B |
The principles established by Justice Moffitt in the Pacific Acceptance case do not include:
auditors have a duty to use reasonable skills and care. | ||
auditors must properly document procedures used. | ||
auditors are watchdogs but not bloodhounds. | ||
auditors must audit the whole year. |
Fundamentals of human resource management
ISBN: 978-0073530468
4th edition
Authors: Raymond A. Noe, John R. Hollenbeck, Barry Gerhart, Patrick M