IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v3y1986i1p281-301.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Imperfect information, insurance, and auditors' legal liability

Author

Listed:
  • BALA V. BALACHANDRAN
  • NANDU J. NAGARAJAN

Abstract

. This paper analyzes the incentive effects of alternative legal systems on the auditor's decision making process. The first system, termed strict liability, holds the auditor liable whenever there is a loss, and the second system, termed negligence, holds the auditor liable for losses arising from the auditor's deviation from a prescribed due care standard. The auditor is assumed to have ex ante limited knowledge of the financial state of the client and the standard setting process. He revises his beliefs on the client's financial state based on a costless signal that may be interpreted as an internal audit report. The analysis shows that signal “quality†and auditor's perception of the client's financial state jointly determine the level of liability required to induce the auditor to adopt a socially optimal due care level. As in Simon's (1982) Model, negligence with supplementary insurance is preferred to strict liability. Further, negligence is shown to operate with less information than strict liability, in contrast to models such as Green (1978) and Shavell (1978). Résumé. Cet article analyse les effets incitatifs de systèmes juridiques alternatifs sur le processus décisionnel du vérificateur. Le premier système, dit de responsabilité stricte, considère le vérificateur responsable à chaque fois qu'il y a une perte, et le deuxième système, dit de négligence, considère le vérificateur responsable des pertes résultant de sa déviance d'une norme prescrite. Le vérificateur est supposé posséder ex ante une connaissance limitée de la situation financière du client ainsi que du processus de normalisation. Il révise ses opinions portant sur la situation financière du client à la lumière d'un signal sans frais qui peut être assimilé à un rapport de vérification interne. L'analyse montre qu'un signal «qualité» ainsi que la perception du vérificateur quant à la situation financière du client déterminent conjointement le niveau de responsabilité requis pour inciter le vérificateur à retenir un niveau de soin raisonnable socialement optimal. De même que le modèle de Simon (1982), le système de négligence avec assurances additionnelles est préféré à la responsabilité stricte. De plus, il est montré que le système de négligence fonctionne avec moins d'information que le système de responsabilité stricte, par opposition à d'autres modèles tels Green (1978) et Shavell (1978).

Suggested Citation

  • Bala V. Balachandran & Nandu J. Nagarajan, 1986. "Imperfect information, insurance, and auditors' legal liability," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 281-301, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:3:y:1986:i:1:p:281-301
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1986.tb00639.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1986.tb00639.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1986.tb00639.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, 1984. "Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    2. A. Mitchell Polinsky & William P. Rogerson, 1983. "Products Liability, Consumer Misperceptions, and Market Power," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 581-589, Autumn.
    3. Michael Spence, 1977. "Consumer Misperceptions, Product Failure and Producer Liability," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 44(3), pages 561-572.
    4. Marilyn J. Simon, 1982. "Diagnoses and Medical Malpractice: A Comparison of Negligence and Strict Liability Systems," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(1), pages 170-180, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2006. "Markets, torts, and social inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(2), pages 300-323, June.
    2. Tomas J. Philipson & Eric Sun, 2008. "Is the Food And Drug Administration Safe And Effective?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 85-102, Winter.
    3. Andrzej Baniak & Peter Grajzl, 2016. "Controlling Product Risks when Consumers Are Heterogeneously Overconfident: Producer Liability versus Minimum-Quality-Standard Regulation," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 274-304, June.
    4. Thomas J. Miceli & Rebecca Rabon & Kathleen Segerson, 2012. "Liability versus Regulation for Controlling Product-Related Risks," Working papers 2012-17, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    5. Andrzej Baniak & Peter Grajzl, 2014. "Controlling Product Risks when Consumers are Heterogeneously Overconfident: Producer Liability vs. Minimum Quality Standard Regulation," CESifo Working Paper Series 5003, CESifo.
    6. Sunding, David L. & Zilberman, David, 1998. "Allocating Product Liability in a Multimarket Setting," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-11, March.
    7. Thomas J. Miceli & Rebecca Rabon & Kathleen Segerson, 2012. "Liability versus Regulation for Dangerous Products When Consumers Vary in Their Susceptibility to Harm and Misperceive Risk," Working papers 2012-15, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    8. Ram Singh, 2009. "RISK, INFORMATIONAL ASYMMETRY AND PRODUCT LIABILITY: An Enquiry Into Conflicting Objectives," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 89-112, February.
    9. Eric Langlais & Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2022. "Endogenous market structures, product liability, and the scope of product differentiation," EconomiX Working Papers 2022-18, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    10. Elisabetta Iossa & Giuliana Palumbo, 2010. "Over-optimism and lender liability in the consumer credit market," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 62(2), pages 374-394, April.
    11. Tim Friehe & Christoph Rößler & Xiaoge Dong, 2020. "Liability for Third-Party Harm When Harm-Inflicting Consumers Are Present Biased," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 75-104.
    12. Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson & Suo Wang, 2015. "Products Liability When Consumers Vary In Their Susceptibility To Harm And May Misperceive Risk," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 33(3), pages 468-476, July.
    13. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2013. "Economic analysis of products liability: Theory," Chapters, in: Jennifer H. Arlen (ed.), Research Handbook on the Economics of Torts, chapter 3, pages 69-96, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Marie Obidzinski & Yves Oytana, 2022. "Advisory algorithms and liability rules," Working Papers hal-04222291, HAL.
    15. Bruce Hay & Kathryn E. Spier, 2005. "Manufacturer Liability for Harms Caused by Consumers to Others," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1700-1711, December.
    16. Baumann, Florian & Friehe, Tim, 2021. "Products liability, consumer misperceptions, and the allocation of consumers to firms," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    17. Palumbo, Giuliana & Iossa, Elisabetta, 2002. "Lender liability in the Consumer Credit Market," FGV EPGE Economics Working Papers (Ensaios Economicos da EPGE) 451, EPGE Brazilian School of Economics and Finance - FGV EPGE (Brazil).
    18. Eric Helland & Darius Lakdawalla & Anup Malani & Seth A Seabury, 2020. "Unintended Consequences of Products Liability: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Market [“An Economic Analysis of Mary Carter Settlement Agreements,”]," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 598-632.
    19. Sungho Yun, 2018. "Minimum safety standards with asymmetric safety costs," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 152-173, April.
    20. Bruce Hay & Kathryn E. Spier, 2004. "Manufacturer Liability for Harms Caused by Consumers to Others," NBER Working Papers 10972, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:3:y:1986:i:1:p:281-301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.