Answers
I have answered the question below
Please up vote for the same and thanks!!!
Do reach out in the comments for any queries
Answer:
1)
- The third party did not suffer a loss; any loss was caused by other events; the claim is invalid because the statute of limitations has expired
- The auditor did not have a duty to third party; the third party used due care; the auditor's work was performed in accord with professional standards
- The auditor's work was performed in accord with GAAS; the third party suffered a loss; any loss to the third party was caused by other events
Explanation:
Generally, the auditor`s defense include:
i. The auditor wasn`t negligent and carried out the audit as per the professional standards.
ii. The auditor had no duty of care to the plaintiff or the third party.
iii. The plaintiff or third party had no loss.
iv. Any loss occurred due to other events.
v. The claim was actually invalid since because the statue of the limitations had actually expired.
vi. The negligence of the plaintiff (contributory negligence) basically contributed to the failure of the auditor to perform.
2)
Options A and C
29, 2008), which asserts (1) that there is no evidence of a causal connection between Grant Thornton's alleged misrepresentation and the Funds' alleged injury; (2) that there is no evidence of actual and justifiable reliance; and (3) that liability for fraudulent misrepresentation runs only to those whom the auditor knows and intends to influence at the time the report is issued-all of which Grant Thornton contends were absent in this case.