Cardozo indeterminacy: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|myth| | {{a|myth| | ||
{{Image|Benjamin Cardozo|jpg|We can’t be categorical about this, but this ''looks'' like Judge B. N. Cardozo. Note how his asymmetrical eyebrow curls given him a permanently wistful look, rather like that adopted by the late Roger Moore throughout his acting career.}} | |||
}}{{d|Cardozo indeterminacy|/kɑːdəʊzəʊ ɪndɪˈtəːmɪnəsi|n|}} | }}{{d|Cardozo indeterminacy|/kɑːdəʊzəʊ ɪndɪˈtəːmɪnəsi|n|}} | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
{{Cardozo indeterminacy}} | {{Cardozo indeterminacy}} | ||
{{casenote|Ultramares|Touche}} is one of those rare case that leapt the Atlantic ditch between competing common law systems, having been cited no fewer that 66 times in recent English case law<ref>[https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?highlight=1&query=(ultramares)&method=boolean See here]</ref> including in no less a fount of authority and lexical wisdom than {{casenote|Hedley Byrne|Heller}}. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Dilbert definition]] | *[[Dilbert definition]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:27, 12 March 2023
|
|
Cardozo indeterminacy
/kɑːdəʊzəʊ ɪndɪˈtəːmɪnəsi (n.)
Liability, if awarded — and therefore, generally not awarded —that would be in “an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class” of claimants. Named for US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. ~, progenitor of that phrase in Ultramares v Touche.
The great American jurist Benjamin N. Cardozo held[1] that a creditor’s claim in negligence against a debtor’s incontestably negligent auditors failed because the auditors did not owe the company’s creditors a duty of care, there being no sufficiently proximate relationship between them. Articulating a now somewhat outdated shareholder capitalism, Cardozo J held the auditors to owe only the shareholders a duty of care.
Said Cardozo J, in an immortal passage that gave rise to the metajuridical concept of “Cardozo indeterminacy”:
“If liability for negligence exists, a thoughtless slip or blunder, the failure to detect a theft or forgery beneath the cover of deceptive entries, may expose accountants to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class. The hazards of a business conducted on these terms are so extreme as to enkindle doubt whether a flaw may not exist in the implication of a duty that exposes to these consequences.”
Ultramares v Touche is one of those rare case that leapt the Atlantic ditch between competing common law systems, having been cited no fewer that 66 times in recent English case law[2] including in no less a fount of authority and lexical wisdom than Hedley Byrne v Heller.