The legal case in which the auditors learnt a lesson that they should neither as

Question

The legal case in which the auditors learnt a lesson that they should neither assume that the client's management was dishonest nor assume the client management's unquestioned honesty was the: a. Escott V. Bar Chris (1968). b. Rusch Factors Inc. V. Levin (1968). c. Equity Funding case (1975). d. The 1136 Tenants' Corporation case. 18. 19. Under the Ultramares doctrine established in Ultramares Corporation V. Touche (1931), a third party could successfully sue an auditor if the third party were to identify himself/herself as a. someone whom the auditor either knew or should have known would rely on the auditor's report. b. someone who belongs to a reasonable limited class of third parties whose identity is known to the auditor. is not known to the auditor. auditor prior to the audit. c. someone who relied on the auditor's report to buy and sell stock in the audit client and whose identity d. someone who is a primary beneficiary of the auditor's report and whose identity is known to the

Explanation / Answer

18) Option B is Correct. Rusch Factrors Inc. V Letin (1968)

19) Option C is Correct. Someone who relied on auditor report to buy and sell

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.