To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Scott Group Ltd v McFarlane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Group Ltd v McFarlane
CourtCourt of Appeal of New Zealand
Full case nameScott Group Ltd v Gordon Munro McFarlane, George Hamish MacMorran & George Ewen Scott
Decided18 November 1977
Citation(s)[1978] 1 NZLR 553
Transcript(s)Court of Appeal judgment
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingRichardson P, Woodhouse J, Cooke J

Scott Group Ltd v McFarlane is a New Zealand case where it was held that an auditor was liable for damages for negligence to a 3rd party which later relied on the audit report.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    1 372
    3 244 243
    2 645
  • CppCon 2017: John McFarlane “CNL: A Compositional Numeric Library”
  • Why the UK Election Results are the Worst in History.
  • CppCon 2017: Rich Geldreich & Stephanie Hurlburt “The Future of Texture Compression”

Transcription

Background

G M McFarlane, a chartered accountant, audited the 1970 John Duthie Holdings Ltd financial statements, and through a simple mathematical error, resulted in John Duthie Holdings net worth being overstated by $38,000.

At the same time, Scott Group Limited were considering making a takeover offer, and after reading the audited reports in question, valued the company at over $1 million, and offered to take over the company on the basis of two shares for every one share.

However, just as the takeover was finalised, the mistake was discovered. As a result, Scott Group argued that it paid $38,000 too much for the shares, and sought compensation from the auditors for this amount.

The auditors in response denied any liability for this mistake, on the basis there was no contractual relationship between the auditors and the takeover company, and neither did they owe Scott Group a duty of care for the mistake.

Decision

The Court of Appeal ruled that as J D Holdings financial position was so poor, it made a takeover by another company a strong possibility, and that as a result, the auditors owed Scott Group a duty of care. No money for damages was awarded, as the court ruled that it had not suffered any financial loss.

Whilst the financial statements were overstated by $38,000, evidence suggested that the shareholders of John Duthie Holdings were unlikely to have accepted any offer lower than the two for one share swap that was offered. Furthermore, the evidence on hand was that Scott Group paid $263,885 less than what the company was worth.

The auditor's disclaimer did not exclude liability to the general public, which Scott Group was, and presumably since this case, most auditors disclaimers now exclude liability to members of the public.

References

  1. ^ Gerbic, Philippa; Lawrence, Martin (2003). Understanding Commercial Law (5th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN 0-408-71714-9.


This page was last edited on 2 March 2023, at 05:04
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.