(n356) Epstein, supra note 300, at 1134.
(n358) Id. at 1135.
(n360) In general, exculpatory language is closely scrutinized, especially where a duty to the public is recognized. Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370 (solo. 1981); Milligan v. Big Valley Corp., 754 P.2d 1063 (Wy. 1988).
(n361) See Goldberg, supra note 225, at 302: "The accounting firm, in effect, engages in activities that enhance the value of its brand name and then rents the brand name to clients. Clients use this brand name as one element of a strategy to induce third parties to enter into financial transactions with them on favorable terms."
(n362) See 1 AICPA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, U.S. Auditing Standards, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 58 Section AU 508.08 (Am. Inst. of Certified Pub. Accountants (CCH) 1990) (setting out the approved language CPAs may use when issuing an unqualified audit opinion).
(n363) See, e.g., the various provisions built into the Uniform Commercial Code defining the scope of disclaimers and limitations of remedy affecting implied and express warranties; U.C.C. Sub section 5 2-316, 2-317, 2-719 (1976).
(n364) LIKlERMAN REPORT, supra note 99, at 21. It is uncertain whether the relevant statute would apply to liability to third parties. But at one point the report states, "In practice [the auditor] probably cannot limit any liabilities to other readers of the accounts, which for all limited companies are a public document...." Id. at 34.
(n365) Id. at 8.
(n367) Id. at 8, 21-22.
(n368) See supra note 225.
(n369) Id. at 308.
(n370) Id. at 301.