ACCA金程ACCA可信赖的财会培训专家

400-700-9596

首页>考试资讯>备考必备>ACCAF4教材里,你永远学不到的知识!

ACCAF4教材里,你永远学不到的知识!

发表时间:2017-05-19 11:09 编辑:金程ACCA 告诉小伙伴:
0

如何正确地理解ACCAF4里的职业过失侵权?以下案例绝对能够告诉你,而且比ACCA教材更粗暴、更高效哦

  ACCAF4教材里,你永远学不到的知识!

  如何正确地理解ACCAF4里的职业过失侵权?以下案例能够告诉你,而且比ACCA教材更粗暴、更高效哦

ACCAF4里那些你学不到的知识

  Professional negligence: cases involving negligent misstatement are usually concerned with establishing whether or not a duty of care was owed by a professional. This area of common law has developed gradually:

  职业过失:关于职业过失的侵权责任的案件一般首先须证明专业人士是否对接受建议的一方负有注意义务。该领域的判例法在不同时期有不同的规定:

  1. Donoghue v Stevenson 1932:

  The case marks the start of modern tort of negligence. Later common law has gradually refined the Neighbour principle in respect of professional negligence.

  该判例奠定了现代侵权责任法的基础。该案以后的判例法就职业过失行为的规定逐渐修改了邻居原则的规定。

  2. Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co 1951:

  A. Investors relied on the audited accounts prepared by auditors and made the decision to invest in the company. The audited accounts turned out to be false and misleading and investors lost all of their investment after the company went insolvent and was wound up. Investors then sued the auditors for professional negligence.

  投资者信赖了由审计人员审计的公司财务报表并决定向公司进行投资。被审计的报表实际存在错报并误导了投资者,投资者在公司破产解散后丧失了全部投资。投资者随后起诉了审计人员追究他们的职业过失责任。

  B. The court held that liability of professionals for their careless statements was depended upon the existence of a contractual or fiduciary relationship.

  法院认为,专业人士是否就其有过失的建议负责,将取决于接收建议的人是否与专业人士有合同或受托的关系。

  >>>金程ACCA四大直通班

  3. Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners Ltd 1963:

  A. Before HB was to transact with a customer, HB requested information from HP (the customer’s Bank) regarding the financial position of a company. HP relied “without responsibility on the part of the this bank…(the customer) was considered good for its ordinary business engagements”. HB relied on the statement and entered into the transaction with that customer, who went bankrupt afterwards. HB lost £17,000 and subsequently sued HP for professional negligence.

  在HB准备和某客户进行交易之前,HB曾向HP咨询客户当时的财务状况,HP为该客户的开户银行。HP回复“在本行不承担责任的前提下…(该客户)就其日常运作而言信用状况良好”。HB信赖了上述声明后并与客户进行交易。客户随后破产,HB损失了£17,000,随后起诉HP追究他们的职业过失责任。

  B. The court stated as obiter dicta that professionals would be liable to those who had a special relationship with them.

  法院在判决附带意见中指出,专业人士应对与其有特殊关系的人负有注意义务。

  C. A special relationship exists where a professional person advises a known person who relies on the statement for a known purpose.

  如果专业人士向特定的人作出特定的意见,而特定的人将该意见用于特定的目的,那么专业人士和特定的人之间将存在特殊的关系。

  D. The court, at the time, did not extend the duty of care to those users who the advisor might merely foresee as a possible user of the statement.

  在该案中,法院并未将注意义务的范围延展至专业人士预见可能会信赖其建议的人。

  4. The Caparo Decision in 1990:

  A. Caparo bought all shares in a company in reliance on the audited accounts. The company went insolvent. Does the auditor, Dickman, owe Caparo a duty of care?

  Caparo信赖了经审计的财务报表后并购买了公司全部股票。公司资不抵债。审计人员Dickman是否对Caparo 负有注意义务?

  B. The court held that:

  Auditors do not owe a duty of care to the public at large or shareholders trying to increase shareholding. Auditors only owe a duty of care to the company, i.e. shareholders of the company as a whole, not to any individual shareholder.

  法院认定,审计人员不对社会公众或被审计公司内试图增持的股东负有注意义务。审计人员对公司负有注意义务,即对全体股东负责,而不对某一名或某些股东负责。

  The purpose the auditor’s report was to assess the performance of managers so the general meeting may decide whether the company should appoint or remove directors. It was not for the purpose of making investment decisions.

  审计报告的目的在于(帮助全体股东)评估管理者的业绩。在此基础上,股东会可以决定是否任免董事。审计报告并无帮助投资者评估投资价值之目的。

  C. Whether a duty of care exists, the court will consider a 3-stage test:

  注意义务是否存在,法院将考虑三步测试:

  Foreseeability: was the harm reasonably foreseeable?

  可预测性:损害是否合理可以被预见?

  Proximity: was there a relationship of proximity - closeness between the parties?

  足够的邻近:当事人之间是否有足够接近的关系?

  Fairness: considering all the circumstances, is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?

  公平公正:考虑所有周边情况,判定注意义务存在是否公平公正合理?

  >>>更多ACCA考试问题点我咨询

  5. ADT Ltd v Binder Hamlyn 1995:

  In some situations, auditors may be held liable to shareholders and investors of its audited companies. The key distinction is that advisor in the ADT case assumed liability for its statements at a board meeting held to discuss the audited results.

  在某些情形中,审计人员可能需要对被审计公司的股东及潜在投资者负有注意义务。本案与Caparo一案的区别在于,ADT一案中的审计人员单独在投资者公司的董事会上就特定的问题发表了意见(因此,两者之间具有特殊的关系。)。

  6. Statutory reform in 2000:

  2000年成文法改革

  In light of the harsh results in the ADT Ltd case, the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000 was passed and LLPs have permitted under statute law to help professionals, e.g. lawyers and accountants, limit their liabilities arising from malpractice and misstatements.

  考虑到ADT Ltd一案中会计师事务所承担的严厉后果,英国议会颁布了《2000年有限责任合伙法》。根据该法的规定,专业人士,如会计师、律师可以设立有限责任合伙来限制因职业过失所须承担的赔偿责任。

填写资料领取ACCA考试资料

ACCA免费资料

全国分校
TOP

登录金程教育

注册金程帐号合作帐号直接登录

注册金程教育

  • 同意金程的《用户协议》

已有账号马上登录合作帐号直接登录