08-04-2004, 11:09 PM
Dear Goodman,
The question was whether the bank can make disclaimers. The decision you quote BJM v BoS was actually <i>against </i> the auditors and not against the Bank.
The basis of the action brought by Royal Bank of Scotland
Plc (the âBankâ) was that the Bank had lent âsubstantial
sumsâ to a company (the "Companyâ) of which the firm of
accountants, Bannerman Johnstone Maclay (âBJMâ), had
been the auditors. When Receivers were subsequently
appointed for the Company and the Bank was unable to
recover much of the monies lent, the Bank argued that
BJM as auditors had owed a duty of care to the Bank, and
that the losses it had sustained had been attributable to
the breach of that duty (having relied, at least in part, on
the contents of the audited accounts when making the
commercial decision to advance the relevant loan(s)).
The question was whether the bank can make disclaimers. The decision you quote BJM v BoS was actually <i>against </i> the auditors and not against the Bank.
The basis of the action brought by Royal Bank of Scotland
Plc (the âBankâ) was that the Bank had lent âsubstantial
sumsâ to a company (the "Companyâ) of which the firm of
accountants, Bannerman Johnstone Maclay (âBJMâ), had
been the auditors. When Receivers were subsequently
appointed for the Company and the Bank was unable to
recover much of the monies lent, the Bank argued that
BJM as auditors had owed a duty of care to the Bank, and
that the losses it had sustained had been attributable to
the breach of that duty (having relied, at least in part, on
the contents of the audited accounts when making the
commercial decision to advance the relevant loan(s)).
