Auditor is not a valuer’, was stated in:

Kingston Cotton Mills case
London Oil Storage Co. case
London and General Bank case
None of the above

The correct answer is: A. Kingston Cotton Mills case

The Kingston Cotton Mills case was a landmark case in English law that established the principle that auditors are not valuers. The case arose out of the collapse of the Kingston Cotton Mills Company in 1890. The company’s auditors had failed to detect a number of significant errors in the company’s accounts, which had led to the company’s collapse. The shareholders of the company sued the auditors for negligence, but the court held that the auditors were not liable. The court held that auditors are not valuers, and that they are not expected to detect every error in a company’s accounts. The court also held that the auditors had acted reasonably in the circumstances.

The Kingston Cotton Mills case is an important case in the history of auditing, as it established the principle that auditors are not valuers. This principle has been applied in a number of subsequent cases, and it is now an established principle of English law.

The other options are incorrect because they do not refer to the Kingston Cotton Mills case. The London Oil Storage Co. case was a case that established the principle that auditors are not insurers. The London and General Bank case was a case that established the principle that auditors are not guarantors.

Exit mobile version