Några begränsningar av revisorns skadeståndsansvar enligt ABL - Normskyddsläran, befogad tillit och adekvat kausalitet

Detta är en Kandidat-uppsats från Lunds universitet/Institutionen för handelsrätt

Sammanfattning: This thesis intends to discuss and analyze in what way the auditor's liability for damages is limited by the requirement of the principle of norm protection, justified trust and adequate causality. Because the principles are not stipulated in law, they have instead been defined and explained in court. The most important court decisions in the thesis are the Prosolviacase and the BDO-case. The principle of norm protection means that only the interests that the violated rule is intended to protect can be able to invoke a claim for damages and demand compensation. The principle was applied for the first time in the BDO case and has to some extent limited the auditor's liability, in particular with regard to external damage cases. With regard to internal damages cases, it is still unclear. Justified trust is a principle which means that if a damaged party has attached a trust to information that is considered to be justified, he or she can make a claim for damages. In practice, it should be the case that justified trust can be attached to an annual report as it constitutes an essential part of a decision basis. Like the principle of norm protection, the principle has only been applied in external damage cases, however, it is unlikely that justified trust can be achieved in an internal damage case. The requirement of adequate causality has been addressed in all court-cases in the thesis and has developed the principle to some extent. The causality assessment has in all cases been applied through the theory of difference, which involves a comparison between a hypothetical course of events and the actual course of events. If the hypothetical course of events shows a more favorable financial result for the damaged party, there is causality. In the Prosolvia case, which is the first case in the area, a relief of evidence is applied in the examination of whether causality existed. The judgment was strongly criticized due to the causality assessment that formed the basis for the liability for damages against the auditor. In subsequent judgments, the Supreme Court has stated that no facilitation of evidence shall be applied in the assessment of causality, which should have meant that the principle limits the auditor's liability to a greater extent than before. Like the previous principles, it is uncertain how it can limit the auditor's liability in internal damage cases as there have been no such cases after the Prosolvia case. The adequacy requirement has not been dealt with to a greater extent and probably can not alone constitute a limitation of damage liability for the auditor.

  HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)