05.03.2020 at 01:45 am

The Artificers' Duty of Care

An admonishment to professionals who issue statements with abandon.

... I think that the law would fail to serve the best interests of the community if it should hold that accountants and auditors owe a duty to no one but their client.

Its influence would be most marked in cases where their client is a company or firm controlled by one man. It would encourage accountants to accept the information which the one man gives them, without verifying it; and to prepare and present the accounts rather as a lawyer prepares and presents a case, putting the best appearance on the accounts they can, without expressing their personal opinion of them. This is, to my way of thinking, an entirely wrong approach.

There is a great difference between the lawyer and the accountant. The lawyer is never called on to express his personal belief in the truth of his client's case; whereas the accountant, who certifies the accounts of his client, is always called on to express his personal opinion as to whether the accounts exhibit a true and correct view of his client's affairs; and he is required to do this, not so much for the satisfaction of his own client, but more for the guidance of shareholders, investors, revenue authorities, and others who may have to rely on the accounts in serious matters of business.

If we should decide this case in favour of the accountants there will be no reason why accountants should ever verify the word of the one man in a one-man company, because there will be no one to complain about it. The one man who gives them wrong information will not complain if they do not verify it. He wants their backing for the misleading information he gives them, and he can only get it if they accept his word without verification. It is just what he wants so as to gain his own ends. And the persons who are misled cannot complain because the accountants owe no duty to them. If such be the law, I think it is to be regretted, for it means that the accountants' certificate, which should be a safeguard, becomes a snare for those who rely on it. I do not myself think that it is the law.

In my opinion accountants owe a duty of care not only to their own clients, but also to all those whom they know will rely on their accounts in the transactions for which those accounts are prepared.

- Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164

I haven't done the research to verify whether this case has been overruled or argued against. But I'd immediately cite Lord Denning's (concluding) dissent.

I find it inspiringly just, as an admonishment against professionals who make statements without due care (despite knowing that those statements are to be relied upon, and we seem to have more of these types these days).

Filed under:
Words: 483 words approx.
Time to read: 1.93 mins (at 250 wpm)
, , , , , , , , ,

Other suggested posts

  1. 29.03.2023 at 10:57 am / Moving Away from Todoist - to Taskwarrior, SSH & Dropbox - Part 2
  2. 26.12.2022 at 08:20 pm / Lusa to Overmorrow, Kelmarin to Ereyesterday
  3. 07.04.2021 at 12:00 am / Harangued Commitments
  4. 20.08.2020 at 08:59 pm / A Case for Legalese (Or Not)
  5. 13.08.2020 at 09:05 pm / Twitter Inspires Carmack
  6. 04.06.2020 at 05:25 pm / Music and Neural Pathways
  7. 19.02.2020 at 10:25 am / STEM, STEAM and Art
  8. 29.08.2018 at 11:06 am / Damascus Differences
  9. 17.12.2017 at 12:00 am / To Know C
  10. 12.12.2017 at 12:00 am / Innocent Until Proven Guilty
© Wan Zafran. See disclaimer.