08-05-2004, 05:51 AM
Auditors make disclaimers to third party in the audit report by specifically mentioning that the audit report is for shareholders, still we get sued, so caparo's principle is now rewritten.
The point mentioning BJM case was
if auditors could be held negligent by court instead of a health warning that report is for shareholders only and no duty of care is owed to anybody else by anybody else why not the opposite could happen in case bank is negligent reporing to us.
All the bank reports have the disclaimer these days, but it doesnot have any value, I think. They can write whatever they feel like.
The point mentioning BJM case was
if auditors could be held negligent by court instead of a health warning that report is for shareholders only and no duty of care is owed to anybody else by anybody else why not the opposite could happen in case bank is negligent reporing to us.
All the bank reports have the disclaimer these days, but it doesnot have any value, I think. They can write whatever they feel like.
