Cardozo indeterminacy

Revision as of 22:07, 27 September 2021 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|myth|}}{{d|Cardozo indeterminacy|/kɑːdəʊzəʊ ɪndɪˈtəːmɪnəsi|n|}} Liability, if awarded — and therefore not awarded —that would be an indeterminate amount...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Myths and legends of the market
The JC’s guide to the foundational mythology of the markets.™


Index: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Cardozo indeterminacy
/kɑːdəʊzəʊ ɪndɪˈtəːmɪnəsi (n.)

Liability, if awarded — and therefore not awarded —that would be an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class of claimants.

After Cardozo J, great American jurist.

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 Articulating a now somewhat outdated shareholder capitalism, Cardozo J held the auditors to owe only the shareholders a duty of care.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.”