会计师第三人责任问题.doc
约15页DOC格式手机打开展开
会计师第三人责任问题,——评最高人民法院的几则司法解释1.3万字15页cpa's liability to non-client third party ——a commentary on three pieces of judicial interpretation of supreme people's court ...
内容介绍
此文档由会员 水中的鱼 发布
会计师第三人责任问题
——评最高人民法院的几则司法解释
1.3万字 15页
CPA's Liability to non-client third Party
—— A Commentary on three Pieces of Judicial Interpretation of Supreme People's Court
【内容摘要】自依据56号解释判决的德阳案开了验资不实诉讼的先河以来，最高人民法院先后作出了几则司法解释，一致主张注册会计师应当向公司的交易相对人承担略加限制的责任……在美国这是由来已久的会计师第三人责任，是一种职业过失侵权责任，先后出现过三种标准……从比较法的角度来看，最高人民法院的几则司法解释，有其见解独到之处，但是遗憾的是，就注册会计师法第42条……
关键词： 会计师第三人责任、职业过失责任、侵权责任、契约的相对性
【Abstract】Since the Deyang case ,decided according to the NO.56 Reply of the Supreme People's Court, triggered the first shoot of litigation for Yanzi Bushi（untrue capital attestation）, the same Court has made at least three pieces of Judicial Interpretation. The same conclusion is that a CPA shall be liable but it is a kind of restricted liability to the party who has concluded a transaction with the corporation whose registered capital is attested by the said CPA.……In USA, that is non-client third party liability of CPA, which has been a source of debate for several decades, a kind of professional negligence liability, and court uses one of the three kinds of standard to determine who can claim the damages from the CPA for negligently preparing financial statements.……From the comparative law point of view ,the three pieces of Judicial Interpretation have deep insight in several points, but it is a great regret that it has not given a reasonable Interpretation about second 42 of the Chinese CPA Act.……
一、引言
二、最高人民法院的三则司法解释
三、美国普通法上的过失责任
四、会计师第三人责任的由来
五、几种标准的分析评价
六、几则司法解释的评析
——评最高人民法院的几则司法解释
1.3万字 15页
CPA's Liability to non-client third Party
—— A Commentary on three Pieces of Judicial Interpretation of Supreme People's Court
【内容摘要】自依据56号解释判决的德阳案开了验资不实诉讼的先河以来，最高人民法院先后作出了几则司法解释，一致主张注册会计师应当向公司的交易相对人承担略加限制的责任……在美国这是由来已久的会计师第三人责任，是一种职业过失侵权责任，先后出现过三种标准……从比较法的角度来看，最高人民法院的几则司法解释，有其见解独到之处，但是遗憾的是，就注册会计师法第42条……
关键词： 会计师第三人责任、职业过失责任、侵权责任、契约的相对性
【Abstract】Since the Deyang case ,decided according to the NO.56 Reply of the Supreme People's Court, triggered the first shoot of litigation for Yanzi Bushi（untrue capital attestation）, the same Court has made at least three pieces of Judicial Interpretation. The same conclusion is that a CPA shall be liable but it is a kind of restricted liability to the party who has concluded a transaction with the corporation whose registered capital is attested by the said CPA.……In USA, that is non-client third party liability of CPA, which has been a source of debate for several decades, a kind of professional negligence liability, and court uses one of the three kinds of standard to determine who can claim the damages from the CPA for negligently preparing financial statements.……From the comparative law point of view ,the three pieces of Judicial Interpretation have deep insight in several points, but it is a great regret that it has not given a reasonable Interpretation about second 42 of the Chinese CPA Act.……
一、引言
二、最高人民法院的三则司法解释
三、美国普通法上的过失责任
四、会计师第三人责任的由来
五、几种标准的分析评价
六、几则司法解释的评析
