ultramares corporation v touche造句

• If the imposition of a duty on a defendant would be for any reason oppressive, or would expose him, in Cardozo C . J .'s famous phrase in " Ultramares Corporation v Touche ", 174 N . E . 441, 444, " to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class, " that will weigh heavily, probably conclusively, against the imposition of a duty ( if it has not already shown a fatal lack of proximity ).
• I can well understand that it would be going too far to make an accountant liable to any person in the land who chooses to rely on the accounts in matters of business, for that would expose him to " liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class " : see " Ultramares Corporation v Touche " per Cardozo CJ . Whether he would be liable if he prepared his accounts for the guidance of a specific class of persons in specific class of transactions, I do not say.
• Both the analogy with contract and the assumption of responsibility have been relied upon as a test of proximity in foreign courts as well as our own : see, for example, " Glanzer v Shepard " ( 1922 ) 135 NE 275, 276; " Ultramares Corporation v Touche " ( 1931 ) 174 N . E . 441, 446; " State Street Trust Co v Ernst " ( 1938 ) 15 N . E . 2d 416, 418; " Scott Group Ltd v McFarlane " [ 1978 ] 1 NZLR 553, 567.