會(huì)計(jì)師第三人責(zé)任問(wèn)題
——評(píng)最高人民法院的幾則司法解釋
全文共14頁(yè) 11000字左右
【內(nèi)容摘要】自依據(jù)56號(hào)解釋判決的德陽(yáng)案開(kāi)了驗(yàn)資不實(shí)訴訟的先河以來(lái)，最高人民法院先后作出了幾則司法解釋?zhuān)恢轮鲝堊?cè)會(huì)計(jì)師應(yīng)當(dāng)向公司的交易相對(duì)人承擔(dān)略加限制的責(zé)任……在美國(guó)這是由來(lái)已久的會(huì)計(jì)師第三人責(zé)任，是一種職業(yè)過(guò)失侵權(quán)責(zé)任，先后出現(xiàn)過(guò)三種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)……從比較法的角度來(lái)看，最高人民法院的幾則司法解釋?zhuān)衅湟?jiàn)解獨(dú)到之處，但是遺憾的是，就注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師法第42條……

關(guān)鍵詞： 會(huì)計(jì)師第三人責(zé)任、職業(yè)過(guò)失責(zé)任、侵權(quán)責(zé)任、契約的相對(duì)性

【Abstract】Since the Deyang case ,decided according to the NO.56 Reply of the Supreme People's Court, triggered the first shoot of litigation for Yanzi Bushi（untrue capital attestation）, the same Court has made at least three pieces of Judicial Interpretation. The same conclusion is that a CPA shall be liable but it is a kind of restricted liability to the party who has concluded a transaction with the corporation whose registered capital is attested by the said CPA.……In USA, that is non-client third party liability of CPA, which has been a source of debate for several decades, a kind of professional negligence liability, and court uses one of the three kinds of standard to determine who can claim the damages from the CPA for negligently preparing financial statements.……From the comparative law point of view ,the three pieces of Judicial Interpretation have deep insight in several points, but it is a great regret that it has not given a reasonable Interpretation about second 42 of the Chinese CPA Act.……

目錄
一、引言
二、最高人民法院的三則司法解釋
三、美國(guó)普通法上的過(guò)失責(zé)任
四、會(huì)計(jì)師第三人責(zé)任的由來(lái)
五、幾種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的分析評(píng)價(jià)
六、幾則司法解釋的評(píng)析
1、56號(hào)解釋
2、10號(hào)解釋
3、13號(hào)解釋
參考文獻(xiàn)
《民法學(xué)說(shuō)判例與立法研究（2）》，北京：國(guó)家行政學(xué)院出版社1999年版
張新寶：《中國(guó)侵權(quán)行為法》，北京：中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)出版社1998年第2版
Orlinski, Supra note 12, at 884；Scherl, Supra note 12,
Hagen II, Supra note 12
FDIC v. Ernst & Young, No. 3-90-0490-H, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13955, at 5 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 1991), aff'd, 967 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1992); Greenstein, Logan & Co. v. Burgess Mktg., Inc., 744 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987).
劉燕：《驗(yàn)資報(bào)告的“虛假”與“真實(shí)”：法律界與會(huì)計(jì)界的對(duì)立——兼評(píng)最高人民法院法函［1996］56號(hào)》，載《法學(xué)研究》1998年第4期
《注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師驗(yàn)資訴訟中的有關(guān)情況及問(wèn)題》，載《注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師通訊》1998年第4期。轉(zhuǎn)引自李建東、周一虹：《注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師驗(yàn)資訴訟斷案邏輯探討》，載《蘭州商學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)》1999年第1期，第 69頁(yè)。