Report about Law

Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on Report about Law  completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW

Do my paper

This is what we wrote so far; need to write about the duty of care and statute of limitation. fit the answer about the duty of care and statute of limitation in our answer, but highlight whatever you added so I know what the addition was.

“”To determine whether you have a claim of negligence against the accounting firm of Dash Spencer, LLP, a legal analysis was conducted using the elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Our firm began our legal analysis by first determining if Dash Spencer, LLP had a duty of care owed to Booster Bank. We must prove that a duty of care is owned on the basis of one of the following: the nature of the relationship of the party, the presence of public policy and the foreseeability of harm. According to CURTIS W. BILY, et al Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. PEAT YOUNG & COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Section 552 of the Restatement Second of Torts covers “Information Negligently Supplied for the Guidance of Others.” It states a general principle that one who negligently supplies false information “for the guidance of others in their business transactions” is liable for economic loss suffered by the recipients in justifiable reliance on the information. In your case, we can argue that a duty of care was owed to you as the nature of the relationship entailed Booster Bank relying on CBF’s audited financial statements to make the decision on the loan. We may also argue that Dash Spencer LLP was aware of this reliance as it is common that firms commission audits to establish financial credibility of their firm in the perception of financial institutions. In terms of the presence of public policy, we must consider the standards in the accounting industry where many, if not all firms follow GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as the standard for reporting financial statements. It is assumed that when financial reports are prepared that they are in conformity with GAAP and fairly represent the correct information regarding a company’s financial position. In terms of the foreseeability of harm, we may argue that the harm suffered by Booster Bank was foreseeable to Dash Spencer LLP because financial institutions like yours would rely on audited financial statements and would suffer damages as a result of the misleading or inaccurate information. Since Dash Spencer LLP actually issued unqualified opinions on CBF’s financial statements it could suggest that they were aware of the reliance on their work.

The second part of our legal analysis included determining if Dash Spencer LLP breached their duty of care to Booster Bank. Dash Spencer LLP had breached their duty of care to Booster Bank by issuing unqualified opinions on Circuit Board Framework’s financial statements for the past four years. Booster Bank relied on this auditing information by Dash Spencer LLP to make their loans to Circuit Board Framework. Booster Bank suffered $2,390,000 in damages which is the probability x severity where the cost of prevention would be $0 if Dash Spencer LLP did not misreport financial information.

The third part of our legal analysis included determining if Dash Spencer LLP was the cause of the damages to Booster Bank by using the “but for” test. Dash Spencer LLP was the firm that conducted the audit on CBF’s financial statements and issued an unqualified opinion which Booster Bank relied on. We can proved that Booster Bank relied on this information based on the fact that they did indeed loan CBF the money on the basis of these audited financial statements by Dash Spencer LLP. As a result of the reliance on this information, Booster Bank suffered losses of $2,390,000 as CBF defaulted on their loan of $3,000,000. If Dash Spencer LLP did not report an unqualified opinion regarding CBF’s financial statements, Booster Bank would not have approved the loan and suffered the damages that ensued.

The last part of our legal analysis included determining if Booster Bank suffered actual damages as a result of Dash Spencer LLPs breach of duty. Booster Bank suffered financial losses when CBF defaulted on their loan of $3,000,000 and filed for bankruptcy which leaves Booster Bank’s prospects of a full recovery as minimal. The damages were caused by Dash Spencer LLP’s breach of duty by issuing unqualified opinions that Booster Bank relied on when approving the loan to CBF.””