Aluma Kraft Manufacturing Co. v. Elmer Fox & Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding lack of privity did not bar suit against an accountant who prepared an audit because it was foreseeable the plaintiff would rely on the audit
• third party, not in privity of contract with a public accountant, has a claim against the accountant for alleged negligent audit opinion relied upon by the third party to its damage
• \Our rejection of the requirement of the strict rule of privity in this case comports with the concepts of the functions and duties of the modern public accountant [and] the purposes of a modern audit ...\
• where a contract for the sale of stock fixed the price of the stock based upon book value as determined by the financial statements the accountants were to prepare and the accountants knew that this use was the sole purpose of their work

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).