chapter 5 - Auditing 1 Chapter 5 5-18 a Lauren Yost Co...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Auditing 1 Chapter 5 5-18 a) Lauren Yost & Co could possible use non- negligent performance because they did not know about the actions of the management staff. Yost could also try using contributory Negligence to show that they advise the president of their finding on the way inventory was conducted and he did not make the change that was recommended. b) Lauren Yost & Co could trying using the defense Lack of Duty to perform the service and non negligent. Even though Yost knew about First City National bank being a third party, they could have their engagement letter stated their liability duties to Stuart. c) It could be very difficult not to prove their liability when they knew about the way Stuart conducted their inventory. d) No the outcome would not be significantly different because auditors are still left with the same defense as they did even with the securities exchange act of 1934. The act make auditors more responsible for finding and prohibiting
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 3

chapter 5 - Auditing 1 Chapter 5 5-18 a Lauren Yost Co...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online