Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry, Bekaert & Holland
North Carolina Supreme Court
407 S.E.2d 178 (1991)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Cherry, Bekaert & Holland (the firm) (defendant) entered into a contract with Intercontinental Metals Corporation (IMC), under which the firm agreed to audit IMC’s financial statements. The firm issued a qualified opinion on IMC’s 1981 financial statements, indicating uncertainty about a $20 million dispute with a supplier. A summary of the firm’s 1981 audit was published in a Dun & Bradstreet report. That summary showed IMC’s net worth to be $6.9 million, when in fact it was negative $14.6 million. Raritan River Steel Company (Raritan) (plaintiff) was a trade creditor of IMC and had provided IMC with a $1.5 million line of credit. Raritan was unable to obtain a copy of IMC’s 1981 financial statements. Based on the summary of the firm’s audit provided in the Dun & Bradstreet report, Raritan extended additional credit to IMC. IMC later filed for bankruptcy, and Raritan was able to recover only a portion of the amount owed to it. Raritan sued the firm, arguing that: (1) it was a third-party intended beneficiary of the contract between the firm and IMC and (2) the firm had breached the contract by failing to follow proper accounting standards in its audit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the firm. The court of appeals reversed, and the firm appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Meyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.